djeggnog

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 660 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Moses, for the most part, completes the book of Deuteronomy before his death in 1473 BC, 741 years before Isaiah completes the writing of his book, some 1,505 years before another God came into existence. So Jehovah's declaration through Moses at Deuteronomy 32:39 is true. Isaiah began to prophesy in the year 778 BC and the book bearing his name (Isaiah) came to be completed in or about the year 732 BC. What I am saying to you is this: When you read Jehovah's declaration through Isaiah at Isaiah 44:6 that "'I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. And who is there like me? ... Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock. I have recognized none,'" is also true. One would need to realize that it would be 764 years after the completion of Isaiah's prophecy that another God came into existence, an only-begotten god, who was not only given by Jehovah God a name that is above every name named, but was the first to be given immortality. This God through whom even the angels of Jehovah render worship is God's firstborn Son, the God whose own God and Father, Jehovah, made Jesus both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36) So why not take a right viewpoint.

  On edit, what I should have written is this (and I think this reads much better):

  "This God through whom even the angels of Jehovah render worship is God's firstborn Son, the God whose own God and Father, Jehovah, made both Lord and Christ, Jesus. (Acts 2:36) So why not take a right viewpoint."

  @Undisfellowshipped wrote:

  Wow o wow! I am somewhat in shock from reading that.

  First, let me tell you thanks and I appreciate hearing from a Witness an explanation of Deuteronomy 32:39 and Isaiah 44:6. I have never had a Witness discuss those two verses with me before. The reason i am shocked is, that since you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses (you did say that you are a Witness, didn't you?) I was not expecting you to say what you said at all.

  Yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm probably going to say many things here that you may have heard and were even taught, but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses -- for whatever reason -- you and others did not learn. Unlike many of Jehovah's Witnesses (and what I'm about to say is certainly cannot be said as to the majority of Jehovah's people by any means!), I don't "parrot" what things I hear others say, nor do I permit anyone to tell me according to their own understanding of what they believe the WTS means by something they have read in our publications. At Luke 8:17, 18, Jesus said the following:

  For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, neither anything carefully concealed that will never become known and never come into the open. Therefore, pay attention to how you listen; for whoever has, more will be given him, but whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him.

  It seems evident that you heard me and, more importantly, that you were paying attention. I know this is like you've been transported to a Kingdom Hall somewhere and sharing a point or two with you that you've never heard before even though the WTS has published these point several times in recent years, but for whatever reason, even though you believe you have at all times been "paying attention," you were just memorizing what things you were hearing. Maybe because the points that were being made sounded like new information that you had never come across before, maybe you were fascinated by the speaker's charisma, who knows, but were you listening? Hardly. Well, you're doing fine if you're able to "pay attention" to what I am saying to you and everyone else here, but you will do better if you "pay attention to how you listen" to what I say here.

  First of all, I would like to ask for clarification of your statement.

  Ok, I'm going to be responding to this and to the rest of your questions momentarily, but before I do so, I'm going to digress here a moment, @Undisfellowshipped, and then pick up from where this digression began in a subsequent post.

  You say you were "somewhat in shock" over what things I said in my previous post, but this board has surprised me a lot, too. I had thought by my joining @Undisfellowshipped's thread here, I would hear new arguments or actually facelifts of old arguments made over, or even some brand new ones by apostates,* but nothing like this is occurring, and @Undisfellowshipped comes across to me as being a nice guy with very strong trinitarian beliefs, but for some reason he's not bringing it. Why it's interesting that no one at all here has yet attacked me for attacking their particular theological viewpoint on the trinity using only the NWT, and my guess is that this is due to the respect that many people on this forum have for the Bible; I don't really know.

  I'd have to say that @Peacedog "brought it," like the kids are wont to say. He was pulling no punches with me and that was great, because you won't get to know the truth unless you are willing to fight for it. It's not going to be given to you and, sad to say, many of the young people that were raised in Christian households, or, as we used to say, "raised in the truth," become adults and often decide to leave the truth (why?) because they didn't fight for the faith. And why is that? Because they were never taught what the apostle Paul meant by what he was admonishing all Christians to do at 1 Timothy 6:12:

  Fight the fine fight of the faith, get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the fine public declaration in front of many witnesses.

  Some of you here are baptized, which means that you have made an unreserved dedication to God to do His will and recognize your responsibility to work, not by your lonesome, preaching your own version of the good news, but with Jehovah’s spirit-directed organization. So on two counts many folks have not been living up to their dedication, but they like the fine Christian association and most of their friends are Jehovah's Witnesses and they don't want to lose that friendship, and many of them have family members in the truth now, and so they are attending meetings and going through the motions of serving God, but in reality they're not serving God at all, for they've pretty much left the truth as many of you here have done (why?) because no one has yet taught you, no one has yet taught any of them, that they need to fight for the faith.

  Jesus told us how this can be done: By paying attention to how we listen. If you have been baptized, then you've made a dedication to Jehovah God to do His will and God won't let you take back your vow. In many ways, I'm just like Jehovah. You make a promise to me -- and I'm not talking about a loan because circumstances can suddenly change (like losing one's job or being diagnosed with the Big "C" or one of your children becomes gravely ill) and can often make our word to pay someone back what money we may have borrowed from them sour -- I'm expecting you to keep it. If you flake on me, that's ok, but I won't let you take back your promise to me, so if a deal of mine falls through because of you, you are somehow going to make it right or we're done.

  This is how Jehovah is, too, for if you make a vow to Him and then, for any reason, should decide not to keep it, He's not trying to hear how the woman accidently fell on your penis about 27 times over the last eight months and how it became harder and harder to stop premeditatedly giving your credit card number to hotel clerks to facilitate these illicit liaisons with your lover (and now that you think of it, it may have been closer to 72 times!) or how surprised you were upon learning that your lover would actually lie to you about her taking birth control pills when your wife was in shock when she first came to learn that you, a congregation elder, were the subject of those judicial committee meetings. But if you who are Jehovah's property by virtue of the dedication that you have made to Him, you who have disowned yourself so that you now belong to God, have broken your vow of faithfulness to Him, Jehovah will exact punishment against any of His servants that should fail to keep his or her vow since a dedicated servant of His must make it right or Jehovah will cast you off forever. (1 Chronicles 28:9)

  I've heard all of the excuses and so has Jehovah, but what He is interested in is faithfulness to one's vows, that we're keeping our word, our promise, our vow, because He wants us to attain to repentance in order that we might become the nucleus of the world to come, and if we should disappoint ourselves and engage in any acts of faithlessness toward God, Jehovah won't like it, but He knows our limitations with respect to the flesh and as long as we are repentant He's ever ready to forgive us our trespasses, and as long as we humbly accept discipline from Him, He will not remember our sin even, if like the prodigal, you've been out of His household and running from His discipline for 10, 15 or 20 years.

  Now the paucity of Bible knowledge that exists here among posters that are still active Jehovah's Witnesses and ex-Jehovah's Witnesses is really the subject of the letter I'm currently writing ("you guys" are all anonymous, so don't worry!), but despite the insults and name-calling by some (from which folks derive much enjoyment, I guess) not one of the alleged apostates that are supposed to be here have yet to engage me. What I've seen here are hurt people, folks broken in spirit, but not a single apostate, because one must know the truth to be able to resist it or to speak against it. My hope is that by my presence here -- and I'm just one man -- some here will get to learn what the Bible teaches and not what they understood a particular article taught or what the elders in the Kingdom Halls they used to attend believed to be the truth, because the truth is found in the Bible and not in our publications.

  I hope everyone is hearing me will understand that when I say here that the truth is not in our publications, what I'm saying is that our publications are not written under divine inspiration, and certainly not by infallible people. The proof of this is that the WTS always needs to make an adjustment to one of the doctrines we teach, like the adjustment in our understanding of "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 (why?) because our beliefs are not static, and we humbly realized that we were mistaken in our view on this, and so we printed an article to keep us all united in faith and speaking in agreement.

  Some here, like you, @Undisfellowshipped, seem to derive enjoyment from posting old articles that contain information in them that they think Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and think they are right about what some Jehovah's Witnesses believe, even those we may no longer embraced such beliefs, which tells me that maybe they didn't know the truth and never did know it (sorry @Undisfellowshipped, but based solely on the things you said in this thread, I really believe this to be true about you). In this very thread, I did a kind of "commentary" on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, and what I wrote was based on the truth as I know it, and not on something written in one of our publications (Why?) because for one thing, the truth is progressive, and, secondly, like I've already stated, an article written six months ago will often contain one thing or two in it that the worldwide association of brothers had to abandon because it was not based on truth.

  Perhaps it would be good for all to read the points in the article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones" ([w74 8/1, 466-473]), for even though this article was published back in 1974, the information in it is still current in that speaks about humility and to the role of elders in helping you to regain an approved standing in God's Great Spiritual House where Jehovah God dwells in person. If you've been baptized, you already have your white robe, you're already dedicated, but you need to be able to put it on since only white robe wearers are being saved through the coming great tribulation. It is maybe @Titus' shtick to say this, but he's right about the concern of some here about the Jehovah's Witnesses that come to this forum getting into trouble.

  The WTS publishes these kinds of articles because many Jehovah's Witnesses, who have been such for 10, 20, 30 years, have proven to be easy prey for disgruntled ones and apostates, especially family members, and they have fallen victim to their tactics because they were in the truth, but didn't know it sufficiently to defend against these predators of their faith, which is why websites like this one, which can cause whatever doubts that one has to surface, can damage one's relationship with Jehovah, and this is the reason for the advice given regarding the dangers of social networks and the like. Why on earth would someone be disfellowshipped for visiting this website? If it were a porn website on the internet that one was to visit, and one's addiction to making such visits to the site should manifest itself in loose conduct that cannot be retarded and curbed, this, of course, would be a different matter.

  Those of you here that think you can go back to 1924 or 1896 or whatever and discover what Jehovah's Witnesses believe today are just ignorant about the progressive nature of the Christian faith in which we all ought to be walking. If you cannot use your own Bible to explain what things you believe without pulling out the "Reasoning," "Bible Teach ..." or maybe the latest Watchtower to do so, then you don't know it, you need to study up on it, because just as Jesus didn't carry parchments in his ministry, Jesus' apostles didn't carry a lot of scrolls around with them in their ministry (and just maybe a letter or two), Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to adequately use the sword of the spirit to accomplish their ministry.

  The Bible literature we have is to be used for personal or congregational study as well as in conducting Bible studies only, and if you didn't know this, then you didn't know, and Jehovah knows this. I'm convinced that Jehovah has not forgotten your work and the love you showed for His name (Hebrews 6:10) and if you've learned anything about Jehovah from you read of the Bible, you already know that He's very good at forgiving others, and not only that: Jehovah excels and take the lead in extending mercy to others. We have those things we like doing because Jehovah made us this way, and being merciful is His thing. Did you do something you knew to be wrong? Here a few things that might resonate with some of you here:

  Did you enter a conspiracy with someone to do something wrong? Did you steal something (like a notebook PC) from your job? Maybe you assaulted someone because they disrespected you or someone with you? Did you murder someone? Or, did you touch someone's child improperly? Did you miss the euphoria of getting wasted and began to grope one of your spiritual sisters while drunk? Did cigarettes begin calling your name again? Did you have to do a little jail time for what you did or for what you were accused and found guilty of doing, and embarrassment, with everyone knowing what you did, is keeping you away. Is sitting next to the woman against whom conspired to obtain a divorce or sitting next to the man whose wife you stole and married so uncomfortable for you that you have stayed away?

  I know the stories, I know many stories, I've heard the recriminations and I've heard the painful crying out, all of it, but Jehovah loves you anyway and He's forgiving all of this, even though your ex or her ex, or several of the sisters or one of the children you improperly touched have a righteous hatred for you and rightly so. That hatred is a part of the scourging that is due for what you did, but you did do it, so let them stare and talk about you, Jehovah is forgiving scarlet kind of sinners, too, not just the yellow kind or the green kind of sinners if you let him forgive you, even if no one else will. Maybe one year, two years, three years (what did you do?), but you'll be reinstated and all of the murmuring about you will diminish.

  In the meantime, talk to the elders and arrange to study the Bible and you learn what things the Bible teaches, not what you believe the article or the book you read teaches. Ask questions, lots of them, and if the brother or the sister you ask cannot answer one of them or doesn't want to answer one of them, find someone else. Come here to this forum and ask me; I'll answer all of your Bible-related questions. Maybe I can find someone near you to help you as well. But learn the truth, learn what the Bible teaches and don't let the imperfections of others cause you to lose the opportunity to be numbered among that "great crowd" that comes out of the great tribulation.

  I believe that the majority of this "category" of posters (for lack of a better way to describe them) have learned more about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and how the preaching work is organized, but less about what things the Bible teaches. Read the Bible, use the publications to help you to learn what it says and asking others for help with the harder to understand things, know what it says and only then can you live by what it says.

  Either way, I have never ever heard a Jehovah's Witness teach this or believe this (I was "raised in the truth" and I went to meetings for 20 years and talked to many many Jehovah's Witnesses).

  Like I stated above, it is evident to me that no one ever taught you that a servant of God must fight for the faith. Consequently, you went through the motions growing up, but were never "in the truth."

  In fact, either way you meant it, are you aware that what you said actually goes against the Watchtower Society's official teachings in their publications? For the benefit of all of the viewers of this thread (and perhaps to enlighten you if you overlooked these Watchtower publications), I am going to post a few direct quotes from these Watchtower publications right here:

  Don't be silly. Between you and I, I'm the one "in the truth" and you don't get to "enlighten" me on anything, except as to the basis of your belief in the Trinity doctrine. Jehovah's Witnesses have beliefs that are based on the Bible, but what we do not have are "official teachings" since something we may have believed to be true nine months ago will quickly be abandoned when as adjustment in our understanding of a particular doctrinal matter becomes necessary. I have said nothing new or anything that departs from what Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible teaches.

  What may be our understanding today may become what we used to believe tomorrow, so we really do not have any official teachings. BTW, the WTS is only the publishing arm of Jehovah's Witnesses where our governing body meets to discuss current events in the light of Bible prophecy and to organize our worldwide preaching activity. You may, in fact, be one of those that spent over 20 years learning more about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and about the WTS, without their really having learned anything as to what things the Bible teaches. Memorizing scriptures and specific articles printed by the WTS is no substitute for obtaining an accurate knowledge of Bible truth.

  Anyway, I am familiar with much of what is contained in our publications, but, as I understand it, @Undisfellowshipped, this particular thread is about whether the Trinity doctrine has scriptural support:

  We are agreed that this debate/discussion will be about whether the Trinity Doctrine is taught or supported in the Bible, using the New World Translation.

  What this thread is not about is what a particular article that appeared in the Watchtower might have stated about the Trinity. If I should feel I need proof from you of something contained in one of our publications, I will ask you, but this preoccupation of yours (and others here) of quoting old articles to make your point is not the same as your quoting from the Bible to make your point. It wastes the time of everyone here that thought they would be reading a discussion or debate having to do with the Trinity doctrine, only to discover instead that you want to post articles written by folks who aren't here to defend what things they have written. If there is going to be much more of this, I will have to withdraw, because right now you are derailing your own thread by not discussing what the Bible itself teaches that you believe supports the Trinity doctrine.

  When I was going to meetings for 20 years, the Witnesses always taught that Jesus was a god right from the beginning, from when He was first created, before the Universe was created.

  So what exactly do you understand me to be saying here? Are you reading just my words here without comprehension kicking in? Jehovah's Witnesses believe what things the Bible teaches, and one of the things that Bible teaches is that Jesus had a prehuman existence, and that before he became the man, Jesus, he was "a god," an angelic creature, whose name is Michael, and it was Jesus (Michael) that served as a master worker alongside God in '[laying] the foundations of the earth" (Hebrews 1:10; Psalm 102:25-27).

  Now, if you truly believe what you said up above, if you believe that is what the Scriptures teach, then that is fine, you should teach it then, but I was just shocked to see that your beliefs were so different from the Watchtower's teachings on this.

  Why do you conflate what things are taught in Watchtower articles with the things that the Bible itself teaches? There are some places on Planet Earth where there are hardly Bibles available to Jehovah's Witnesses to use, let alone any of our literature, but the brothers and sisters in these lands regularly conduct home Bible studies using just their own Bible and their own notes. You seem to be like many active Jehovah's Witnesses today that pore through the Watchtower articles and books contained on the WT Library CD in search of articles that they think will impress the congregation, even the elders, because they really do not know the truth, and their motives are not right with Jehovah for they crave the praise and attention they receive and never study to show themselves approved. After 10 years, after 20 years, after 30 years, they drift away from us because they were putting their faith in WTS publications and "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3:7) Perhaps this very thing that I have just described here has happened in your case, @Undisfellowshipped. You are currently not an active Witness, and yet you love quoting from WTS literature as if our literature has as much or more value than the Bible. Now I am an active Witness and yet you do not see me quoting or citing article after article after article to make any of my points! What is wrong with this picture?

  *An apostate would be someone that has become decidedly alienated from God in that he or she has come to learn what things the Bible teaches, but resists what things he or she has learned by teaching and saying things to others that he or she not only knows to be false, knows these things to be contrary to what the Bible teaches. I have said that one doesn't necessarily need to have submitted to water baptism to behave in an apostate manner and believe me: This is true.
• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @TD:

  Greg Stafford is the author of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics. Robert Bowman Jr. is an Evangelical theologian currently affiliated with the Institute for Religious Research

  Thanks. I've never heard of either of these men.

  @TD wrote:

  (I realize that sometimes proper grammar requires that the term 'God' have an uppercase 'G' even if it doesn't refer to the Supreme Being, but this seems to muddy the water when you're debating the nature of the Being the term describes.)

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You really should pick one position and stick with it, and not limp between two positions and this comment here does. If you want rules, then you can say that without also taking the position of one that might be opposed to the imposition of grammatical rules on this thread. My position is that we should not be imposing any such rules on anyone in order that no one should be reluctant to participate in this thread. This is, again, just my opinion, @TD.

  @TD wrote:

  It's not actually a problem of two different opinions, it's a problem of two different sets of rules.... Taken together, the two rules can work at cross-purposes on this particular subject. I'm not the world's best communicator, but what I was actually proposing was that people not limp between the two rules.

  You don't really need to be the world's best communicator, but people really shouldn't take themselves so seriously that they are wound so tightly that they cannot laugh at themselves. Or at someone else. This rejoinder of yours was both unexpected and funny, @TD. Actually, you are one of the best communicators on this board, but, unfortunately, the "bar none" award belongs to someone else. Maybe next year. <g>

  @BANE:

  Are you dense or what? ... Here is ANOTHER Catholic website... Moron.

  Until your post, folks were being civil to each other. I continue to be surprised over how well folks seemed to have been getting along, despite having disparate viewpoints on the Trinity doctrine. I do not know the dynamic that exists between you and @LeavingWT, but may I ask that you save the insults for another thread, for such really have no place in this one that was started by @Undisfellowshipped, as such remarks like these could take this thread -- which is now up to page eight -- off the rails, and perhaps you could contribute something to the discussion that we have to cover. Thanks.

  @Think About It:

  According to the doctrine of the Trinity:

  (1) God is the Father, and, (2) Jesus is God. Therefore, by transitivity, according to the doctrine of the Trinity: (3) Jesus is the Father. Yet, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is not the Father.

  So, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus both is and is not the Father.

  Nicely said!

  @djeggnog wrote:

  HEBREWS 1:5, 6

  5 For 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"? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him."

  Out of all of God's angels in heaven, to which of them did God ever declare to be his son, or to be his father. When during his second coming God next sends his Firstborn into the world, all of God's angels will also serve him even as they serve God directing their worship to God through Jesus.

  HEBREWS 1:13, 14

  13 But 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"? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

  To none of the other angels did God ever offer a seat at His right hand or to give to any one of them authority over earth's inhabitants, even though all of them are faithful servants of God whose role is to actively minister to the needs of God's servants on earth.

  So you found my insertion of the word "other" in order to convey my understanding of the text at Hebrews 1:5 to have been dishonest in some way?

  @peacedog wrote:

  eggnog, you added a word that completely changes the meaning of the verse:

  Pre-eggnog verse: God never said to any of the angels...

  Post-eggnog verse: God never said to any of the other angels...

  The pre-eggnog verse eliminates any and all angels. The post-eggnog verse does not.

  This just may be a case of your not getting the point of my "commentary." I didn't change the meaning of any of the verses I quoted from Hebrews chapter 1 or in Hebrews chapter 2. Not really. I sought only to emphasize the words at Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13, respectively, "to which of the angels did he..." and "to which of the angels had he..." in my commentary. I suppose I could have written instead "to which [one] of the angels did he..." and "to which [one] of the angels had he...," in lieu of "to which of the [other] angels did he..." and "to which of the [other] angels had he...," but the context of these two Bible passages indicates, as I read the Bible text, that Jesus is a member of the group to which the apostle Paul refers called "angels."

  At the Kentucky Derby each year, the question that is asked by horse racing enthusiasts and sports aficionados alike is "to which of the horses will the purse be given"? and: "to which NBA team" (if you're into basketball) or "to which NFL team" (if you're into football) "will the championship trophy be awarded"? However, if Kobe Bryant didn't play football for the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV or if Peyton Manning didn't play basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers, a football fan would not comprehend a statement that began with the words, "If Kobe Bryant and his team wins the Super Bowl...," nor would a basketball fan comprehend a statement that began with the words, "If Peyton Manning and his team should not win the Western Conference title this year...."

  I'm going to ask you to now read Hebrews 1:13 in a symbolic way similar to how a Bible scholar would read this verse, ok? I'm going to present Hebrews 1:13 in such a way that I believe you will understand what the verse means in the same way that I read and understand this verse. Now here's a short "cheat" sheet:

  "God"

  NBA Commissioner, David Stern

  "The angels"

  The Leagues' 30 NBA teams

  "Rulership"

  The championship trophy

  [1] Hebrews 1:13

  [2] Excerpt from djeggnog "commentary" on Hebrews 1:13

  [3] Symbolic representation of Hebrews 1:13

  [4] djeggnog "commentary" on symbolic representation of Hebrews 1:13

  [1] But 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"?

  [2] To none of the other angels did God ever offer a seat at His right hand.

  [3] But with regard to which one of the NBA teams did David Stern award the championship trophy?

  [4] To none of the other NBA teams did David Stern ever award the championship trophy.

  Looking at [1], the words "which one of the angels" mean that only one angel is being singled out from all of the other angels. If the verse had said "which two ... angels," then this would indicate that two angels are being distinguished from among the rest of the angels.

  Looking at [2], the words "to none of the other angels" would just be another way of making the point that while there were other angels that could have been offered a seat at the hand of power, not one of them received such an offer, for only one of them got the nod.

  Looking at [3], the words "to which one of the NBA teams" mean that only one team was awarded a trophy by the Commissioner.

  Looking at [4], the words "to none of the other NBA teams" would just be another way of expressing the point that while there were 30 NBA teams that vied for the trophy and could have won it, to only one of them was the trophy awarded by the Commissioner.

  Food for thought: If the ORIGINAL bible verse said "God never said to any of the OTHER angels", and I went ahead and removed the word "other", changing the meaning of the verse to fit my theology, would it be dishonest of me?

  If your motive for removing the word was in order that the verse might fit your theology, yes, removing the word "other" would be dishonest.

  @peacedog wrote:

  Your explanation reeks of the Watchtower Society and I must dismiss it for the same reason that I consider the NWT a biased, sectarian translation.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Wouldn't it be somewhat surprising to discover the [doctrinal] teachings of Baptists or of Seventh-Day Adventists being discussed [and taught] in any of the publications that are published by the WTS? I don't believe it fair to [describe] that [which] I provided in my earlier post to which you are referring [to be] an "explanation" of either Hebrews 1:5 or of Hebrews 1:13, so on what basis are you saying that you found my explanation to "reek"?

  @peacedog wrote:

  I said it reeks of the Watchtower Society, which is to say it is exactly the sort of tactic they would use to explain a problematic verse: inserting the word "other" to change the meaning of the words biblical text. (consider Col 1:15-17)

  But I didn't insert any words into the verse at Hebrews 1:13, did I? I only used the word "other" in my "commentary" on this verse.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Now if you believe I did something wrong here by posting my "commentary" on the first two chapters of Hebrews based on how I understand these two chapters to be saying, please tell me what you believe I did wrong here. Before I post another message to you in this thread, I'm going to require an answer from you, because you are treating me here as if I'd done something onerous to you.

  @peacedog wrote:

  eggnog, you have done nothing onerous to me. I have no problem with you posting your opinion on these or any other verses. At the same time, realize that I may not agree with your opinions and I may choose to voice that disagreement. In the case of Hebrews chapter 1, I disagree with you adding the word "other" in order to change the meaning of the biblical text so that it fits with your personal theology.

  What "personal theology"? I offered what amount to being an opinion as to the meaning of Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, a kind of "commentary," as it were, but I didn't add any words to the verses I quoted, not one word, because the point of a commentary is not to tamper with the Bible text at all, but to provide an explanation of the Bible text under consideration.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  About what exactly are you accusing me of being in denial?

  @peacedog wrote:

  You deny the obvious statement of Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13:

  5God has never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son, because today I have become your Father!" Neither has God said to any of them, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son!"

  13God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!"

  What "obvious statement" do you mean? Evidently the meaning of the apostle Paul's statement at Hebrews 1:5 and at Hebrews 1:13 is not so "obvious," otherwise we would not be even having this discussion, correct?

  You denial is evidenced by your adding the word "other" to change the meaning of the verse to fit your theology. I recommend re-reading the verses slowly, paying particular attention to the absence of the word "other".

  I didn't add the word "other" either to the text of Hebrews 1:5 or to the text of Hebrews 1:13, so your complaint, so I would accordingly recommend that you take a moment to read what it was I actually wrote to which you are here positing an objection. You might then realize that what you are here accusing me of doing I never did do since I didn't tamper with the text of either of these two verses. I merely commented on them is all.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Moses, for the most part, completes the book of Deuteronomy before his death in 1473 BC, 741 years before Isaiah completes the writing of his book, some 1,505 years before another God came into existence. So Jehovah's declaration through Moses at Deuteronomy 32:39 is true.

  The point that I was here making is that when Jehovah made this declaration through Moses at Deuteronomy 32:39, there existed no other God like Jehovah. In the Bible, what distinguishes a real God from others gods is whether they are immortal, for Jehovah often used His angelic sons, as well as human kings, judges and prophets to convey His will, and in the Bible Satan is himself identified as being the angelic "god of this system of things" (2 Corinthians 4:4), but none of these angels or humans possessed immortality and so none of them were real Gods. That all changed some 1,505 years after Jesus' resurrection when it was then that Jesus was given immortality by Jehovah, making him a God.

  @peacedog wrote:

  Are you seriously suggesting that Jehovah's declaration at Deut 32:39 ("THERE ARE NO GODS TOGETHER WITH ME") is true because Jesus didn't exist at that time?..........

  No. While Jesus did preexist the founding of the world, the one that "laid the foundations of the earth" (Hebrews 1:10; Psalm 102:25-27), Jehovah's declaration is true because God "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). But more to the real point that I believe to be your question to me here:

  John refers to Jesus at John 1:18 as "the only-begotten god," but with his resurrection, he became a "new creation," for as the apostle Paul stated at 2 Corinthians 5:17, in Christ, "new things have come into existence." In 33 AD, after his resurrection from the dead by Jehovah God, Jesus became a new creation "according to the power of an indestructible life" (Hebrews 7:16). Jesus became an immortal God! It is for this reason that Thomas knew that he could rightly exclaim, upon his realization of the fact that Jesus had been resurrected at John 20:28, what he exclaimed on that occasion: "My Lord and my God!"

  I suggest you re-read John 1:1. When you do so, you will note that the verse begins "In the beginning....". To what would you consider this to be a reference? The beginning of the book of John? The beginning of the week?

  I have read John's prologue many times and I understand what John 1:1 means, that Jesus existed at the beginning of Jehovah's creative works, for we read at John 1:3 concerning Jesus: "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." Now I could just as well have quoted John here as saying --

  All things came into existence through [Jesus], and apart from [Jesus] not even one thing came into existence.

  -- to clarify the fact that the pronoun "him" that is used twice in this particular verse refers to Jesus, but I am not changing the verse when I do this. I am not putting a spin on the verse or pushing my own "personal theology" on anyone Whenever I do this, all I am doing is clarifying the meaning of the verse. You accused me in this last post of yours of being dishonest, you have impugned my motives in adding the word "other" in my explanation of Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13, so what I've done here, @peacedog, is presented to you my defense to what is a false accusation.

  You say my explanation "reeks" of the WTS, you describe the NWT as being "a biased, sectarian translation," you accused me of employing dishonest "tactics" in changing the Bible texts to fit my "personal theology." Touché! You are certainly entitled to all of these opinions of me, the NWT and the WTS, but it is this that I opine, @peacedog: The explanations I have provided here do not 'reek' of anything having a foul-smelling odor, the NWT is not a biased Bible translation that favors the theological viewpoints of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I have no "personal theology" at all.

  I know what the Bible teaches and my theology is based on the Bible. I cannot promise you eternal life, and there is absolutely nothing that I could possibly say to anyone that could guarantee that they will be among the survivors of the great tribulation survival because I cannot get my own ticket validated until after "the sign of the Son of man" becomes manifest. So whatever "personal theology" I might have now would be totally meaningless then if it should not be based on truth, if my "personal theology" should turn out to not be based on Bible truth.

  But 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'? Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

  Note that Paul says here at Hebrews 1:14 that they, including the angel that 'sits at God's right hand,' are "all [of them] spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those that are going to inherit salvation."

  @djeggnog wrote:

  But 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'? Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

  Note that Paul says here at Hebrews 1:14 that they, including the angel that 'sits at God's right hand,' are "all [of them] spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those that are going to inherit salvation."

  @peacedog wrote:

  I hardly know where to start. This is such an obvious misinterpretation of these verses...

  Ok.

  What Hebrews 1:13,14 says is that God never said "sit at my right hand....." to *ANY* angel, for (because, as evidenced by) angels are merely servants of those who are going to be saved. Do you see?

  No, I do not "see" this at all.

  Angels are "merely servants of those who are going to be saved". One such as this would not be appointed to sit at the right hand of God.

  Well, wouldn't this be a bit of conjecture on your part? Why wouldn't God appoint an angel to sit at His right hand? Is it just that you don't like the idea of God giving kingdom, rulership and power to an angel? By what authority do you make this statement, @peacedog? What is the basis on which this statement of yours rests? Are we here discussing here your own "personal theology" now, you own personal viewpoint of this matter -- what things you are willing to believe to be true and what things you are simply not willing to believe to be true -- or are we here discussing what Paul is saying at Hebrews 1:13, 14?

  Why wouldn't an angel be appointed by God to sit at His right hand?

  Please answer me this one question, @peacedog:

  Consider the CEV rendering, which is quite clear:

  God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!" Angels are merely spirits sent to serve people who are going to be saved.

  Do you see that God never said "Sit at my right hand....." to "ANY of the angels"? For angels are merely spirits sent to serve, not to sit at the right hand of God.

  Now that's unfortunate, @peacedog. Do the agreed-upon terms of this discussion/debate no longer matter to you? Do you feel you're losing ground and feel a change of strategy is now in order? Do you think making a strategic move now will change things so that they are more to your liking or what are you doing? Toward the beginning of this thread, @Undisfellowshipped wrote the following:

  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.

  And @Undisfellowshipped also wrote this:

  We are agreed that this debate/discussion will be about whether the Trinity Doctrine is taught or supported in the Bible, using the New World Translation.

  I agreed to these terms, but since you have introduced the Contemporary English Version (CEV) rendering of Hebrews 1:13, 14, I think we should paste in here both the NWT's and the CEV's rendering of these two verses, and I'll include the rendering of these same verses according to the KJV, the ASV and the RSV, for a total of five (5) translations, and with this one exception being made for you, I will ask that you do not again seek to abrogate the terms established at the beginning of this thread by introducing renderings of the Bible text from Bible translations other than the NWT. Otherwise, this thread could become unwieldy and unnecessarily confusing and I will have to withdraw from it once this thread has lost its focus.

  Now all but the CEV render Paul's words at Hebrews 1:13, 14 in a similar manner, using the word "which" (KJV, ASV, RSV) or the words "which one" (NWT), but the CEV's rendering interprets the verse to say what you have said here: "God never said to any of the angels..." Did you write the CEV? The word "God" is not used in the original Greek text of Hebrews 1:13, 14, but the CEV puts "God" right there in the verse, right there in its rendering of Hebrews 1:13, but why?

  HEBREWS 1:13, 14, NWT

  13 But 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"? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

  HEBREWS 1:13, 14, CEV

  13 God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!" 14 Angels are merely spirits sent to serve people who are going to be saved.

  HEBREWS 1:13, 14, KJV

  13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

  HEBREWS 1:13, 14, ASV

  13 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?

  HEBREWS 1:13, 14, RSV

  13 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?

  Do the think the translators of the CEV feel they have a duty to include their own theological understanding of what they believe the apostle Paul to be saying at Hebrews 1:13 in order to help the reader to comprehend the meaning of Paul's words? You and I might know that by his use of the word "he" at Hebrews 1:13 that the apostle is referring to God, but should the Bible translator be arranging the text in such a way that they put a word into Paul's mouth that amounts to its interpreting the text, rather than just translating it?

  The readers of the CEV wouldn't have any way of knowing this, because they may not even have a Bible written in the koine Greek in which this Greek text was written because they may not possess the ability to read the Greek language copy. They would be relying upon the abilities of the CEV translators, not to interpret the Greek text, but to render the Greek text using words from a lexicon that they can comprehend, so they would expect to be reading the Greek text rendered into English, if it is English they read, or into Spanish if it is Spanish that they read, or into French if it is French that they read, and so forth.

  In rendering Hebrews 1:13, 14, the CEV goes further than the other four Bible translations here in foreclosing the thought that God made a choice as implied by the word "which" or "which one," for the CEV knocks the whole idea out of the ballpark when it says, "God never said to any of the angels...." Without any qualifiers, the English language word, "which," implies choice, that a choice is being made between two or more things. By his use of the words, "the angels," Paul is clearly referring to "two or more" angels and the very implication of his use of the word, "which" in what he says at Hebrews 1:13 is that the apostle is there talking about a choice that had been made among these angels, which cannot be comprehended when one reads the CEV, but is comprehended when one reads the NWT, the KJV, the ASV and the RSV.

  Above you stated that you found my explanation to 'reek' of the WTS, and you went on to describe the NWT as being "a biased, sectarian translation," while accusing me of employing dishonest "tactics" and changing Bible texts to fit my "personal theology." I'm sure you will remember saying all of these things. But clearly the CEV demonstrates a theological bias that favors comprehending Paul's words at Hebrews 1:13 differently than how someone else that reads this same text at Hebrews 1:13 would comprehend Paul's words were they to be reading them in the NWT, the KJV, the ASV or the RSV, correct? Paul never wrote, "God never said to any of the angels...," but readers of the CEV wouldn't know this, would they? Would you regard this example as being a case of theological dishonesty on the part of the CEV translators, of the CV being "a biased, sectarian translation"? Or, would you just give the CEV translators a pass?

  Looking at how the same five (5) Bible translations render another verse -- Luke 24:37 -- please tell me which of the five do not faithfully render the words of the gospel writer Luke, but introduces its own theological leanings into this verse:

  LUKE 24:37, NWT

  37 But because they were terrified, and had become frightened, they were imagining they beheld a spirit.

  LUKE 24:37, CEV

  37 They were frightened and terrified because they thought they were seeing a ghost.

  LUKE 24:37, KJV

  37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

  LUKE 24:37, ASV

  37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.

  LUKE 24:37, RSV

  37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.

  Do the think the translators of the CEV feel they have a duty to include their own theological understanding of what they believed Luke to have been saying here at Luke 24:37 in order to help the reader to comprehend the meaning of Luke's words, considering that four of the five Bible translators here do not render the Greek word they rendered into English as "spirit" as "ghost"? What do you think Luke to have been saying here about these frightened, terrified people that had been gathered together in a room behind a closed door when suddenly Jesus pops into the room? I mean Jesus could have just knocked on the door and maybe someone in the room would have opened the door so that he could have entered the room in a more conventional manner, right? But the text at Luke 24:37 indicates that Jesus didn't do that; he didn't knock on the door. He suddenly materializes right before their eyes as a fully clothed man -- one would assume that Jesus wasn't naked! -- so that they became terrified and frightened over thinking that a spirit had just popped into the room, and that they were now looking at a spirit.

  Now what did Luke mean? Do you even know what Luke was saying had occurred in this room on this particular occasion? Was Luke intimating that there is such a thing as ghosts, or was the CEV's use of the word "ghost" based on the CEV translator's theological leanings since nowhere in the Bible does it teach the existence of ghosts? I can only imagine someone that uses the CEV and points to Luke 24:37 in order to prove that the Bible teaches that ghosts really exist, when this is not something that the Bible teaches at all.

  The CEV's use of the word "ghost" here contradicts the Bible, for in connection with the witch of Endor at 1 Samuel 28:12-14, note that only the spirit medium was able to see "Samuel," for King Saul saw nothing and he had to rely upon her spiritistic powers to tell Saul what it was she saw:

  When the woman saw "Samuel" she began crying out at the top of her voice; and the woman went on to say to Saul: "Why did you trick me, when you yourself are Saul?" But the king said to her: "Do not be afraid, but what did you see?" And the woman went on to say to Saul: "A god I saw coming up out of the earth." At once he said to her: "What is his form?" to which she said: "It is an old man coming up, and he has himself covered with a sleeveless coat." At that Saul recognized that it was "Samuel," and he proceeded to bow low with his face to the earth and to prostrate himself.

  You see, 1 Samuel 28:12-14 is talking about a wicked spirit -- a demon -- that only this medium was able to "see," and, of course, we know that the reason King Saul was unable to see "Samuel" is because it was after the global deluge that the ability that these wicked angels had to able to materialize as men in fleshly bodies so that they could be seen by other humans was no longer possible for them to do.

  Now Luke never wrote that Jesus' disciples "thought they were seeing a ghost," but how would readers of the CEV know this? So what did Luke mean by "spirit"? What was Luke saying that Jesus' disciples thought they were beholding? Answer: An unclean spirit is what they thought was in the same room where they were and this thought of being in a locked room with a demon is something that both terrified and frightened them. Now why didn't the NWT just add the word "unclean" to the verse at Luke 24:37? Because contrary to what you choose to believe about the WTS, those that sat on the Translation Committee that produced the NWT did not feel it had some duty to include its own theological understanding of what they believed Luke to have been saying at Luke 24:37 in order to help the reader to comprehend the meaning of Luke's words. Yes, the NWT could have rendered Luke 24:37 like this --

  But because they were terrified, and had become frightened, they were imagining they beheld [an unclean] spirit.

  -- but the NWT faithfully translated the Greek text into English. It is for those reading the Bible to determine its meaning and not the duty of the Bible translator to impose its own theological leanings on any Bible verse. Just as when the word "Jehovah" is found in the NWT in certain places in the Greek text, such as Luke 20:42, where other Bible translations quote Jesus' words, but substitute a word like "LORD" in their rendering of Luke 20:42, we know that Jesus used the divine name "Jehovah," because he was quoting from Psalm 110:1, which psalm the ASV translates, "Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

  The NWT does not change the words used in the original text, except where it is clear that someone else improperly tampered with the text. The Greek Septuagint Bible that Jesus and his apostles used during the first century renders Psalm 110:1 in Greek, but this rendering included the Hebrew tetragrammaton "YHWH" when rendering the psalmist's words. What the NWT does not do is change a word like "spirit" and render it as "ghost" instead as does the CEV.

  Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (John 2:19-21)

  Did Jesus say *HE* was going to raise his body or did he not?

  As the apostle John explains at John 2:21, Jesus wasn't referring to his own physical body, but he was rather making reference there to "the temple of his body." Note how the apostle Paul's own words at 1 Corinthians 6:19 makes this point clear: "Do you not know that the body of you people is [the] temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God?" Also, Paul makes the very same point at 1 Corinthians 3:16: "Do you not know that you people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you?" And so when was this "temple of the holy spirit" raised up?

  It was on the third day when Jesus gave life to the "lifeless corpse" of the "body" of Christians that had been gathered together in that room, for at John 20:21-23 Jesus animated that "body" when he said the following: "'Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending you.' And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: 'Receive holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain those of any persons, they stand retained.'"
• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @peacedog:

  Really, Isaiah 44:6 ought to be enough to prove the biblical Deity of Jesus (given John 1:1 and Rev 2:8):

  Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

  Imagine a religion that claims to believe the bible and yet in the face of this verse they claim there is another god who is also the first and the last!

  It boggles the mind......

  You also mentioned Deuteronomy 32:39 ("There are NO GODS TOGETHER WITH ME"). Another verse that goes against JW theology. I've yet to have a JW explain to me how Jesus can be "a god" who is "with God" (John 1:1 nwt) when at Deut 32:39 God clearly states "THERE ARE NO GODS TOGETHER WITH ME".

  Moses, for the most part, completes the book of Deuteronomy before his death in 1473 BC, 741 years before Isaiah completes the writing of his book, some 1,505 years before another God came into existence. So Jehovah's declaration through Moses at Deuteronomy 32:39 is true.

  Isaiah began to prophesy in the year 778 BC and the book bearing his name (Isaiah) came to be completed in or about the year 732 BC. What I am saying to you is this: When you read Jehovah's declaration through Isaiah at Isaiah 44:6 that "'I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. And who is there like me? ... Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock. I have recognized none,'" is also true.

  One would need to realize that it would be 764 years after the completion of Isaiah's prophecy that another God came into existence, an only-begotten god, who was not only given by Jehovah God a name that is above every name named, but was the first to be given immortality. This God through whom even the angels of Jehovah render worship is God's firstborn Son, the God whose own God and Father, Jehovah, made Jesus both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36) So why not take a right viewpoint.

  In answer to your question --

  Q: Did God ever say to ANY angel, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you."?

  -- the proper response would be:

  A: Yes. To the Lord Jesus Christ as to whom, at Hebrews 1:13, the apostle Paul applies David's psalm at Psalm 110:1, 2.

  Now considering the words we read at Hebrews 1:13, 14 together, what does Paul say about the angel that 'sits at God's right hand until the time when Jesus' enemies here on earth would be placed before him as a footstool'? This:

  But 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'? Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

  Note that Paul says here at Hebrews 1:14 that they, including the angel that 'sits at God's right hand,' are "all [of them] spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those that are going to inherit salvation."

  Paul also says that "it is not to angels that [God] has subjected the inhabited earth to come," as in more than one angel, but to the one that God made "a little lower than angels, who He later crowned with glory and honor, and appointed over all of God's works and subjected all things under his feet -- that is, to Jesus, "the one for whose sake all things are and through whom all things are" -- that God did all of these things, including making him the Chief Agent of salvation "in bringing many sons to glory. (Hebrews 2:5-10)

  Moreover, in Jesus' offering himself as a "propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people," he also becomes "a merciful and faithful high priest" to God, in those things that pertain to God. (Hebrews 2:17) Jesus did not do all of these things for the sake of Jesus' brother angels that had forsaken their proper dwelling place to go after human flesh for unnatural use, whose sins caused them to be placed in "eternal bonds" after the global deluge as they await judgment (Jude 6, 7), but it was for the sake of Abraham's seed, for the sake of the "young children, whom Jehovah [had given him]" to be his brothers, "sharers of blood and flesh" of which human nature Jesus himself similarly partook in order to "emancipate all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery [to sin and death] all through their lives" to whom Jesus had given his assistance. (Hebrews 2:14-16)
• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I'm not going to quibble, but no, Paul is not explaining anything about God's nature at Romans 1:20. He is making the point that God's qualities, His "eternal power and Godship" being among them, are perceived by the things made.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  Do you know what the word "Godship" means? Do you know what the Greek word means? How do you define the word "Godship"?

  I will let the "Insight" Book explain for us what this word means:

  "Insight" Book, Volume 1, Page 639 (Under the heading "Divine"):

  At Romans 1:20 the apostle refers to the undeniable visible evidence of God’s "invisible qualities," particularly his "eternal power and Godship.... "divine nature, divinity." ... The apostle is discussing things that are discernible in the physical creation....

  So then, "Godship" means "Divine Nature," "The quality of being a god," "the fact that the Creator truly is God and is worthy of our worship."

  I only just told someone else in a thread I posted yesterday and I'm now telling you that "I do not require you or require anyone at all to post any of the articles that have appeared in any of the WTS publications. I have all of them...." If you wish to define a word, like "Godship," in order to ensure that I understand that by it you mean either "divine nature" or "divinity," that would be enough for me, but all of what you wrote wasn't at all necessary to make your point, @Undisfellowshipped. Had you just asked me the question, my answer as to whether I [knew] what the word "Godship" means would have been "yes."

  However, I notice your inclusion here of "the quality of being a god" in your summation of how the Insight book defined "Godship," which may be how you read Insight's definition of "Godship," but this isn't how the word is actually defined in the Insight book as you are suggesting here. I'm going to ask that you please not do this, for, in a decision like this one, I'm paying strict attention to sleights of hand just like this one.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  The following list gives the definition of words, terms, and phrases that I will use in this debate:

  * "Godship": "Divine Nature" [from the "Insight" Book and Liddell & Scott]; "the state of being God" [Thayer], the Essence or Being of God.

  * "Deity": Same as "Godship."

  * "Divinity": Same as "Godship."

  * "Godhead": Same as "Godship."

  The Insight book doesn't use Thayer's definition of the word "Godhead," which you claim to be the same as "Godship," when Thayer defines "Godhead," and not "Godship," as "the state of being God," except in your previous post you stated that Thayer defined "Godship" as "the quality of being a god," and you are the one that has added "the Essence or Being of God," which I do not accept as a definition for "Godship."

  * "Only-Begotten": "The Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´ is defined by lexicographers as "single of its kind, only," or "the only member of a kin or kind." (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144)" (That was a quote from the "Insight" Book, Volume 2, Page 556)

  Just to be clear, Jesus is the "only-begotten" son of God, because Jehovah God is Jesus' Father, or "Begetter," in the sense that a human father begets a son or a daughter. That Jehovah and Jesus are two separate individuals is clear from what the apostle Paul states at 1 Timothy 2:5 about Jesus being the "one mediator between God and men."

  A "mediator" is by definition a separate party that mediates, that is to say, reconciles, the differences that may exist between two other parties. A mediator is typically a neutral party. Jesus essentially became the "go-between" with his Father on one side and mankind on the other side, which demonstrates that Jesus and Jehovah are two separate individuals.

  * "Firstborn": The one who holds the highest rank, the preeminence, the first place, the "most high" position. (See Psalm 89:27)

  For you to quote only the two words, "most high" from Psalm 89:27 is to reach for straws since the rest of this stanza reads, "[The most high] of the kings of the earth." This portion of the stanza from which you quoted only the first two words is a reference by David to his seed, who would be given more kingly authority than anyone in the dynasty of Davidic kings. I am saying this just to make it clear that while, as you say, this is one of the phrases that you intend to use during this discussion, any attempt on your part to use this phrase improperly, to misuse it so as to make the reference to Jehovah as the "Most High" at Psalm 7:17, 47:2, 83:18 or 97:9 as being equal to this prophetic reference to Jesus Christ at Psalm 89:27, will lead to my withdrawal from this thread.

  * "God" with a Capital "G": The One True God by Nature, the Supreme Being, the Creator, the Almighty.

  I don't care whether you choose to use God or god in what you write, but I do not accept this designation of God as being "The One True God by Nature." You can use it, of course, as you wish, but I reject the addition of the words "by Nature" as being meaningless and making "The One True God" obscure.

  * "god" with a lower-case "g": Anyone or thing that is called a god by people, or that is worshiped, or a representative of the True God who does not have the Divine Nature.

  I don't care whether you choose to use God or god, when written to refer to a god other than the true God, Jehovah, but as there are no capital letters in Hebrew and the NWT is an English language Bible translation in which capital letters are used, then we might just read the context in order to ascertain what God or god used in a particular verse means. For example, at Exodus 4:16 as well as at Exodus 7:1, the NWT uses "God" instead of "god" since Moses is made to serve as and be God's representative, speaking on God's behalf (albeit through his brother, Aaron) to Pharaoh. Note, too, that while Moses, a man, doesn't possess the divine nature -- his composition being human, physical, earthly -- at no time is Moses worshipped by anyone either, so whether one should use God or god is based on the context in which the word is used as well.

  You specifically mention "The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," but this lexicon oftentimes leaves one in the proverbial lurch when searching for the meaning of words like the English word "spirit," for example, that is used at Luke 24:37, 39, which word really means "demon," even though many Bible translations, like the NWT, use the literal word "spirit." (I'm really don't know how many Jehovah's Witnesses are competent to explain its use in these two verses, for many would wrongly assume that Jesus is referring to his spirit (divine) nature.)

  * "Angel" with a Capital "A": "The Angel of the Lord," The Special Divine Angel that has God's Name within Him, who is also Jehovah.

  What are you talking about here? Are you referring to the angel that led the Israelites at Exodus 23:20, 21, who I believe to be Michael, because Exodus 23:21 says about this angel that 'God's name was within him'? This angel as not Jehovah, and so I cannot agree with this definition.

  * "angel" with a lower-case "a": Any one of the millions of created spirit persons who serve God and do not have the Divine Nature.

  I cannot agree with this definition either, for the 144,000 are going to be angels, but with a higher station than they, for, unlike the angels, these king-priests are destined to "become sharers in divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), meaning that they will becomes gods just as Jesus became a god after his resurrection to an immortal spirit. However, these angels not having the divine nature does in no way make them any less "gods" or "godlike ones" (Psalm 8:5), which psalm the apostle Paul quotes at Hebrews 2:7, substituting the word "angels" for "godlike ones."

  @djeggnog wrote:

  No. I cannot agree with how you phrased point #4, and as to your point #6, Jehovah did make Moses God to Pharaoh, did He not? (Exodus 7:1) In fact, there are many gods mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, not the least of which were the judges of Israel (Psalm 82:1, 6, 7).

  @Undisfellowshipped wrote:

  There is only One True God by Nature....

  Nope. I do not and cannot agree with this "by Nature" qualifier that you add to "One True God" for theological reasons.

  Regarding these so-called gods, the Apostle Paul wrote the following:

  1 Corinthians 8:4-6: ...there is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.

  Now, at first glance, this passage may appear to be saying that Jesus is not God, but I will comment on this in a bit.... Let us examine this passage closely, for it is a very important passage for correctly understanding all of the other Scriptures in the Bible.

  Oh, really! All Scripture is important, but this particular passage you mention here seems especially important to you. I'm fine with that.

  Paul starts off by saying "there is no God but one." Now, what does Paul mean here when he says there is no other God, except for the One that he is preaching?

  You asked a question, but I note that you do not bother to answer it since you want to connect this "non-answer" to something else, which is fine.

  Paul goes on to say that there are many who are CALLED "gods" and "lords" (some are in heaven and some on earth), but to Christians, there is only One True God, and only One True Lord.

  Where in the passage you cite -- 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 -- does the apostle Paul say that there is only "One True God" and only "One True Lord"? Please don't make stuff up. Remember, I'm paying attention to everything you say here, and it seems to me that you could convince the unwary that this passage said exactly what you said it does. However, both you and I know that it really doesn't say this, does it?

  So then, Paul is teaching that EVERY OTHER "god" besides The Father and Jesus, whether in heaven or on earth, are merely CALLED "gods" or "so-called gods."

  No, he isn't; Paul is not at all saying at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 anything that comes close to what you are saying here about Jehovah and Jesus both being Gods:

  There is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.

  In my opinion, it would be best that you not twist the apostle's words as you have done here.

  But what does Paul mean here when he says there is only one "God"? By comparing Galatians 4:8 and Romans 1:20, 25, we can see clearly that Paul is saying that there is only ONE God who is God BY NATURE, only One who has the Divine Nature, and that all other "gods" are NOT Gods by Nature, even if they are "called gods."

  The Bible speaks of those that are "Jews by nature" (Galatians 2:15) as well as those among the uncircumcised that are "such by nature" (Romans 2:27), and when I do a comparison, as you suggest here, of the thought expressed at Romans 1:20, first, I see that unlike what it means to be a Jew or to be a Gentile, what Paul is talking about at Romans 1:20 are the intrinsic qualities of God, and not a thing about God's "nature."

  Also, with reference to the other verse you cite here -- Romans 1:25 -- I have no idea what your reason for using it may have been, so I suppose you'll let me know your thoughts on this in a future post. I'm just going to ignore this verse altogether as being totally irrelevant to our discussion. Jehovah is not the only one that has the "divine nature," for Jesus has it as well as the 144,000 underpriests will all have this "divine nature." (Please see my remarks on your definition for the word "Godship," in a previous post.)

  So, from this, we can see that even though Moses, the judges of Israel, the Davidic Kings, and the angels were CALLED "gods" because they spoke for the One True God, they were actually NOT Gods by Nature--they did NOT possess the Divine Nature of God.

  No, the fact that these Moses, the angels, etc., may have been God's representatives, this has nothing to do with whether they were in possession of the divine nature. After Jesus' resurrection, he was in possession of the divine nature, too, was he not? And yet Jesus wasn't the "One True God," was he? In fact, Jesus described himself at John 10:36 as being "God's Son," did he not?

  However, did you notice that Paul EXCLUDES Jesus from "those called gods." Jesus is NOT one of the "so-called gods" that Paul spoke about there.

  Yes, and ...?

  If Jesus is not one of those who are called gods, then does that mean He possesses the Divine Nature, and is truly God by Nature? I will discuss this more in another post later.

  No. Paul's having excluded Jesus from among those who are called "gods" has nothing at all to do with whether Jesus is in possession of the divine nature, or because Jesus is "truly God by Nature" as you put it. At Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul is there talking about how it is to Christians there is but "one God the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." Please don't bother trying to make this passage say something that it really doesn't say, ok?

  At first glance, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ["there is actually to us one God the Father"] does appear (to some people) that it is teaching that ONLY The Father is the True God for Christians, and this excludes Jesus from being the One True God.

  However, if we apply that exact same logic to the entire passage, then we must also conclude that since it says "there is actually to us... one Lord, Jesus Christ," this would EXCLUDE The Father from being the True Lord. But, we know that is false from several Scriptures which clearly teach that The Father is Lord. (Luke 10:21; Revelation 11:15)

  You have made an incredible leap in logic, for what you are saying here is not logical. It's pretty dumb actually since I happen to be one of those people that take away from reading Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 that Paul is saying that to us, that is to say, to Christians, there is but one God the Father.

  I do not think it at all logical, and I'd doubt that you could find many other people unless they be trinitarians like yourself, to conclude that by Paul was saying that to us [Christians] ... there is one Lord, Jesus Christ and that Jesus could not also be called "Lord." Paul's point is that Christians render worship to the same God the Father ("out of whom all things are") through the Lord Jesus Christ ("through whom all things are"), who is also the very same "one God the Father" that the Lord Jesus Christ renders worship. Paul says not a thing at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 about any "True Lord." I'm sure you have your reasons for adding this "True Lord" concept to this passage, and I don't mind waiting until you get around to telling me those reasons.

  The best way to interpret this passage is to notice that Paul equates the so-called "gods" with the so-called "lords." Paul lumps them both together. He equates them. The "gods" are not a higher class of beings than the "lords."

  No, he doesn't. You are the one here lumping "gods" with "lords," saying that "he equates" the two with each other, not Paul. You are here introducing the concept of two "classes" -- "gods" and "lords" -- being equal to one another, a concept that has no scriptural support whatsoever, and unless you are prepared to say to me with a straight face that Sarah, at Genesis 18:12, who refers to her husband, Abraham, as "my lord," could just as well have addressed him as "my god," you should really stop while you are ahead.

  It is clear to me that you said all of this to give credence to your next statement, which is as follows:

  In the same way, the True God is not a higher class of being or nature than the True Lord. Both the True God and the True Lord are SEPARATE from those who are merely called "gods."

  While it is true that Jehovah, who you are calling "the True God," and Jesus, who you are calling "the True Lord," are separate from those who are called, not just "gods," but "lords," too, the fact that you say that the True God and the True Lord are and not "the True God and the True Lord is suggests to me that you are doing your best to make your explanation work, but the "are" is Freudian, isn't it?

  You will notice that there IS a difference in their roles or functions (the work they perform). The Father is the Source of all things and all things came Through Jesus.

  In addition, the Scriptures teach that you must never "venerate," "worship," or render "sacred service" to any creature, but only to the Creator. (Romans 1:25; Matthew 4:10)

  Even if a creature is highly exalted and is in a God-given position of authority and is speaking for the One True God, the Scriptures still command us NEVER to "worship" or "do obeisance" (Greek word is "Proskyneo" or a variation) to creatures. The Bible even FORBIDS doing "obeisance" to the Apostle Peter who represented God on earth and spoke for Him (Acts 10:25-26), and it FORBIDS "worshiping" the holy angel who was God's spokesman in the Book of Revelation! (Revelation 19:9-10 and 22:8-9)

  However, God the Father commands all people and angels to "worship," "do obeisance," "bow down," "serve," and "honor" Jesus. (Hebrews 1:6; Revelation chapter 5; John 5:23; Philippians 2:9-11)

  Perhaps you wouldn't mind providing to me the scriptural citation -- just one would be sufficient -- upon which your statement that God commands "all people" to worship Jesus is based. I'd like to read it. Bending the knee to give honor to our king, Jesus Christ, isn't the same as worshipping Jesus, for Christians give honor to Jesus to the glory of God and worship God through Jesus. In fact, Christians honor the Father when they honor the Son. (John 5:22, 23) Similarly, belief in Jesus is in reality putting one's faith in God, the One that sent Jesus, and it is through Jesus and not to Jesus that Christians make their approach to God. (John 12:44; Hebrews 7:25) Also, it is through Jesus that "the 'Amen' [is said] to God for glory." (2 Corinthians 1:20)

  So, from this we can determine that either Jesus is NOT a creature, but instead is the Divine Creator who deserves our worship and obeisance, OR the Bible contradicts itself and should not be trusted.

  No, you can't, for the citations you provided here do not do that, they do not indicate that Jesus is "the Divine Creator who deserves our worship," and for you to be suggesting here that these citations prove Jesus to be "the Divine Creator" when the Bible teaches that (a) Jehovah is the Creator and that (b) Jesus is responsible for laying "the foundations of the earth" as well as the heavens, who was (c) begotten by God, thus becoming (d) God's firstborn, (e) a coworker with God, and, although being (f) a creature, the beginning of the creation of God, Jesus is now, just as Thomas stated after his resurrection, (g) a God in his own right, in view of the fact that (h) he alone was the first to be made a God, so that he became (i) the first to whom God gave immortality as well as (j) first in all things. (Isaiah 45:18; Hebrews 1:1, 2, 10; Psalm 102:25-27; John 1:14, 18; 20:28; Colossians 1:15, 18; Proverbs 8:30; Revelation 3:14; 1 Timothy 6:16)

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  I hope you don't mind, but I would like to reply to your earlier post you made regarding Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 before I return to our regular debate we have going.

  No, I don't mind. <g>

  @djeggnog wrote:

  When anyone reads the first two chapters of Hebrews without theological underpinnings, it is clear that the apostle Paul is not just speaking generally about the angels of God through whom God communicated to the Hebrew forefathers "long ago," but Paul is referring to one angel in particular through whom God spoke, who he calls "a Son ...through whom [God] made the systems of things," and who we learn, based on Paul's quoting Psalm 102:25-27 and applying this psalm to Jesus, to have been responsible for laying "the foundations of the earth" as well as the heavens, and which we also learn, based on Paul's quoting Nathan's prophecy at 2 Samuel 7:14 to Jesus, to be a very distinguished angel. (Colossians 1:15, 16)

  @Undisfellowshipped wrote:

  You say that if anyone reads the first two chapters of Hebrews "without theological underpinnings" it is clear that Paul is referring to one angel, a very distinguished angel named Jesus. How do you arrive at the belief that Jesus is an angel? Can you show Scriptures which teach that Jesus is an angel?

  I have appended to this post my response to this question, a response, mind you, that I had previously posted to another thread not so long ago, one that you, in fact, started. I don't mind telling you -- so I am telling you -- that I'm annoyed that you would be asking me the very same question that you had asked in another thread, a question that I had answered!

  [APPENDED]

  6:) Can you explain, using only the Bible, why we should believe that Jesus is the same person as Michael the Archangel?

  At Daniel 12:1, the prophet Daniel foretold a time of distress on the earth that had never occurred before on the earth, and it was indicated in his prophecy that during this same time period, the great prince, Michael, would be ‘standing up’ for the Jewish people. This angelic prince, Michael, at Daniel 10:13, is also referred to as "one of the foremost princes." In the Bible, the phrase "stand up," or words to this effect, means that the one that is said to "stand up" commences his rulership as king, and so this prince, Michael, the prophet Daniel says, stands up as king on behalf of God’s people during this time of distress.

  At Matthew 24:21, Jesus Christ also predicted that such a time of distress would be coming that "[had] not occurred since the world’s beginning, ... nor [would] occur again," referring to this event as a "great tribulation." Now when reading Matthew 24:21, one can easily conclude that this is just a coincidence and nothing more, but keep in mind that Michael is described as one of the "foremost" princes, which is not to diminish other "foremost" angelic princes, for Gabriel is the only other angelic prince mentioned by name in the Bible and certainly he might be described as "foremost"among God's angelic princes. However, we notice upon reading Jude 9 that Michael is described in this verse as "Michael the archangel," where "arch-" carries the meaning of "foremost-angel" or "chief-angel." Note, too, that Michael is not just described in Jude 9 as an "archangel," but as "the archangel," which would mean that of all of the foremost princes, Michael is the only angelic prince that is an archangel. BTW, I should note here that there is an angel described at Exodus 23:20, 21, as having God's name "within him" and that the name "Michael" does mean "Who is Like God?" At Judges 2:1, 2, note that it is Jehovah's angel there speaking to Joshua, Moses' successor, the words: "I proceeded to bring you up out of Egypt.... But you have not listened to my voice."

  Although this angel is not Jehovah, notice that he speaks to Joshua as if he were Jehovah, which suggests something great about this particular angel's authority to speak for God, an authority, mind you, that no other angel seems to possess. Just compare how at Luke 1:13-19, the angel Gabriel speaks to Zechariah, John the Baptist's father, not "I am here to 'declare the good news' ... [about your barren wife Elizabeth's becoming mother to a son to you, whose name you are to call John] to you," but "I was sent forth to speak with you and declare the good news ... [about your barren wife Elizabeth's becoming mother to a son to you, whose name you are to call John] to you." Also, compare how at Luke 1:26-33, Gabriel says to Mary, not "I am with you," but "Jehovah is with you," not "you have found favor with me," but "you have found favor with God," not "I will give him the throne of David his father," but "Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father."

  Note now that in Daniel's prophecy at Daniel 7:2-8, Daniel sees a succession of world powers and each "beast" in this prophecy represents a world power that "stands up" and reigns as king, one after the other (as explained in more detail in Daniel chapter 11), until we read at Daniel 7:13, 14, where "someone like a son of man" becomes a king after the reign of the "fourth" ten-horned beast, and this "son of man" is given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him," and unlike the kingdom that preceded his kingdom, "his rulership is an indefinitely lasting [one], ... and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin."

  So in Daniel's prophecy both this "son of man" (Daniel 7:13, 14) and this foremost angelic prince Michael (Daniel 12:1) become a king. But note that at Ezekiel 21:27, God had told King Zedekiah that after him, the kingdom would become no one else's until the time appointed by God, at which point God would then give theocratic rulership to the one with the legal right to rule from God's throne. In many places in the Bible, Jesus identifies himself as being this "Son of man," for example, while being the Lord of the sabbath, Jesus describes himself as being "the Son of man" at Matthew 12:8, and at Matthew 16:27, Jesus says that "the Son of man" is destined to come, not with God's angels, but "with his angels."

  Keeping this in mind, it should jump right out at the reader of Revelation 12:7-10, that Michael is the Lord Jesus Christ, for we read there that "Michael and his angels" battled with the one called Devil and Satan, so that Satan was hurled down to the earth with his angels, at which time "the authority of God's Son, or Christ, came to pass. Is Michael not the Christ?

  But while there are so many things in the Bible that point to Michael as being the alter-ego of the Lord Jesus Christ, one thing that stands out to many is the apostle Paul's description of Jesus as raising those of the first resurrection from the dead "with an archangel's voice." Is Jesus an archangel? Yes, even as Michael is one of the foremost, or chief, princes, and Jesus, the Son of man, and the one to whom rulership, dignity and kingdom is given by God, is the one that descends from heaven "with a commanding call, [and] with an archangel's voice," the only right conclusion that can be drawn is that Jesus is not only an archangel, but is THE archangel, and both he and Michael are, in fact, the same person.
• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  To none of the other angels did God ever offer a seat at His right hand or to give to any one of them authority over earth's inhabitants, even though all of them are faithful servants of God whose role is to actively minister to the needs of God's servants on earth.

  @peacedog wrote:

  I notice you inserted the word "other": "to none of the OTHER angels".

  Verse 5 and 13 say that God never said these things to *ANY* angel; not to any *OTHER* angel.

  So you found my insertion of the word "other" in order to convey my understanding of the text at Hebrews 1:5 to have been dishonest in some way? No, Hebrews 1:5 doesn't include the word "other" in it, but I inserted the word as part of what I referred to my "commentary" on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2. If I had indicated in my post that I was quoting from Hebrews 1:5 as rendered in the NWT, then you could rightly object to my inserting the word into the text, but I don't believe I even intimated in my post that I was quoting from any of the verses in either Hebrews chapter 1 or Hebrews chapter 2, did I?

  Your explanation reeks of the Watchtower Society and I must dismiss it for the same reason that I consider the NWT a biased, sectarian translation.

  Did I mention to you that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Wouldn't it be somewhat surprising to discover the teachings of Baptists or of Seventh-Day Adventists being discussed in any of the publications that are published by the WTS? I don't believe it fair to say that I provided in my earlier post to which you are referring an "explanation" of either Hebrews 1:5 or of Hebrews 1:13, so on what basis are you saying that you found my explanation to "reek"? I'm not saying that you don't have the right to conclude whatever it is you wished about what I wrote here, the same as anyone else here, and it is evident that you didn't agree with what I had written, but this is what prefaced my comments:

  At any rate, the following is a brief "commentary" on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, and when reviewing these two chapters, ask yourself the question, For what purpose does the apostle Paul have here for talking about angels? What is his point?

  In this thread, @Undisfellowshipped indicated his desire that the NWT be used during this discussion of the Trinity doctrine, and even though you are telling me here how you have found the NWT to be "a biased, sectarian translation," my "commentary" doesn't quote either Hebrews chapters 1 and 2; it merely comments on these two chapters and that's pretty much all I did. Moreover, in a Bible commentary, I can use whatever language I wish in order to convey to others whatever it is I think will convey my point of view.

  Whatever reasons you might have for bashing the NWT as a suitable Bible translation aside, there doesn't seem to me to have been any discernible reason for your telling me that you didn't like the NWT, although I am well aware that many former Jehovah's Witnesses and non-Jehovah's Witnesses believe other Bible translations to be better and prefer to use those Bible translations over the NWT. I don't care wish Bible you prefer to use, but of what benefit is it to me to know that you don't like the NWT?

  I don't know, @peacedog, but just maybe you didn't read this portion of @Undisfellowshipped's post, as follows:

  So, I challenged BANE to a debate on the Trinity using only the New World Translation. He has yet to respond. So I am now issuing that challenge to him and ANYONE else who would accept.

  Now if you believe I did something wrong here by posting my "commentary" on the first two chapters of Hebrews based on how I understand these two chapters to be saying, please tell me what you believe I did wrong here. Before I post another message to you in this thread, I'm going to require an answer from you, because you are treating me here as if I'd done something onerous to you.

  It makes no sense to carry on a biblical debate with a person whose 'solution' to a problematic verse is to change what it says....

  How exactly did I change what either of these two verses say when I didn't even quote from Hebrews 1:5 or Hebrews 1:13?

  To quote debator: "It is funny to see trinitarians jump through hoops to deny the obvious and bible written. Replacing it with the obscure and read-into scripture. Often as in this case resorting to saying the scripture is not saying saying [sic] what it obviously is."

  Replace "trinitarians" with "JWs" and he's spot-on.

  What "hoops" did I jump through? About what exactly are you accusing me of being in denial? I'm just trying to have a friendly Bible-related discussion here with @Undisfellowshipped, with you, with others here. I'm not here to fight with you or with anyone so let's clear the air and start over. Let me know what you believe I've done wrong here so that, if possible, I can take steps to right that wrong, if it should be possible to do so, in order that you and me, and the rest of those that should join and participating in this thread with us, might have a good and robust discussion. Thanks in advance.

  @TD:

  This is only a suggestion intended to be helpful.

  How are you doing? I'm happy to see that you have decided to join this thread.

  I've followed debates like these (e.g. Greg Stafford vs. Rob Bowman) and it seems like a communication problem usually develops over how the most basic terms are defined.

  I'm not at all familiar with Greg Stafford or Rob Bowman, which must before my time began here on JWN, but I don't think it a good idea for anyone to impose rules on how we express our respective points of view, for everyone come to a thread bringing their own rich experience as well as education, and because some of us have perhaps had more education that others, I discourage the imposition of rules on the spelling of the words we use or the grammar that we use to convey our thoughts, since this can lead (and often does lead!) to someone coming off to some as thinking himself or herself to be superior to others when this sentiment may not even be true.

  I say let everyone have freeness of speech to say whatever they wish in whatever manner they wish to express their own points of view.

  Would it would be helpful as the discussion progresses to clearly [indicated] with upper case and lower case G's (God and god) when the term is being applied to the Supreme Being and when it is not?

  No, I don't believe so, but it is clear to me that you are more educated that some here and so it might be more acceptable to you in reading a particular thread if everyone here would agree to embrace certain rules that you like, but I believe to impose rules on anyone could cause some to stifle or suppress remarks that they would otherwise have made absent the imposition of such rules. Again, this is just my opinion.

  (I realize that sometimes proper grammar requires that the term 'God' have an uppercase 'G' even if it doesn't refer to the Supreme Being, but this seems to muddy the water when you're debating the nature of the Being the term describes.)

  You really should pick one position and stick with it, and not limp between two positions and this comment here does. If you want rules, then you can say that without also taking the position of one that might be opposed to the imposition of grammatical rules on this thread. My position is that we should not be imposing any such rules on anyone in order that no one should be reluctant to participate in this thread. This is, again, just my opinion, @TD.
• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog:

  All I ask is that you do your best to stay focused, for I will withdraw from this discussion (or debate) if you should introduce arguments that have nothing at all to do with proving the Trinity to be a Bible-based doctrine using the New World Translation of the Holy [Scriptures].

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  I will do my best to stay focused. And I understand why you would withdraw if this debate or discussion goes "off-track" or off-topic.

  Reading back what I wrote, I came off as if I were here dictating rules for a thread that you started, and I'm not doing that. I just wanted to let you know in advance that I will withdraw from this thread if it should go off topic (I realize that his may not be anyone's fault necessarily, but I assume that other people may be contributing to this discussion/debate as well), but I was only letting you know that I will withdraw if this thread goes off the rails, and there doesn't seem to be a way to get it back on the track.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  We are agreed that this debate/discussion will be about whether the Trinity Doctrine is taught or supported in the Bible, using the New World Translation.

  Agreed.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  With that said, would it be acceptable to you that if we have a disagreement about the meaning of a word or phrase, or, for instance, if I lack knowledge about what a certain word or phrase means, we can use dictionaries (Bible dictionaries and English dictionaries) to determine the proper meanings?

  Also, the New World Translation that I am using is the 1984 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References (Footnotes). Would it be acceptable to you for us to also discuss the further information that is found in the Footnotes and Appendix in that Translation?

  In addition, would it be acceptable to bring into this discussion certain information that we find helpful from the "Insight" Books or "Reasoning" Book (Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)? For example, if there is information in those books which give the meanings of certain words or phrases or passages of Scripture that may have a bearing on the Trinity? (We could even call this supplemental information from the "Insight" and "Reasoning" Books "Translators' Notes" since they were published by the same group that translated the New World Translation).

  My main points will all be taken from the New World Translation Reference Bible, and if you prefer, we will use only the New World Translation and NO other Watchtower Publications. Your choice there.

  I would prefer that we use the NWT and nothing more, "main points" or otherwise. Of course, you can consult whatever reference book you wish, whether published by the WTS or by some other book publishing outfit, but I'm going to just be using the NWT.

  @djeggnog:

  Why do you care that folks are making a "study in the Scriptures" and that they are thinking for themselves if you are not, as you say, here promoting either a church or a religious group?

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  I am a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am humbly trying to do my small part in obeying my Lord's "Great Commission" to go and preach and teach and make disciples of people for the Lord.

  Well, you seem to have formed a sect of your own, for after the "Great Commission," when the spirit was poured out on that Pentecost day in 33 AD, congregations of Christians were formed as the number of those receiving the spirit increased from 120 to 3,000 to 5,000 in really no time at all. You cannot help God's organization do the work by your being outside of God's organization.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  Jesus said "Come to Me", He did not say "Come to this certain church building or church group."

  What about those taking the lead in the congregations of God? (Hebrews 13:17) How can you "be obedient" when you are doing your own thing and preaching your own gospel?

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  John 17:3 says that getting to know (or "taking in knowledge of") God and Jesus means everlasting life. That sounds pretty important to me, and I am sure it is equally important to you as well.

  You cannot take in knowledge of God and Jesus (except maybe second-handedly) when you are outside of God's channel from which progressive truths flow today.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  I try to imitate Paul, the Noble-Minded Beroeans (Acts 17:11) and most of all, Christ Jesus.

  Ok.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  Having a personal relationship with God, believing in the Ransom, and having His Spirit is far more important than belonging to a certain group or going to a certain building. (John 4:21-24)

  But your actions in separating yourself and preaching your own gospel strongly suggests that you do not have God's spirit and aren't being led by it.

  @djeggnog:

  Do you think that encouraging others to take up a study of the Scriptures, as you are doing, isn't the same as your promoting a sect?

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  The same accusation was made against Paul and the early disciples, and probably was made against the Noble-Minded Beroeans of Acts 17:11-12, as well.

  You didn't answer my question. Maybe you'll decide to answer it later.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  How can it ever be wrong to encourage people to study the Scriptures daily? In fact, isn't that posted on the outside of one of the Bethel buildings in New York?

  Hey! Isn't that a non-sequitur? What possible difference would it make if Staples Center has the words "Read God's Word Daily" emblazoned on one of the walls? I'm missing your point since my question to you wasn't so much about what you were doing, but why you were doing it outside of God's organization as a sect.

  @djeggnog:

  Please explain why someone that doesn't believe that the Trinity doctrine has scriptural support should not believe in Unitarianism? I don't follow your logic here, considering that Trinitarianism is not the same as Unitarianism, and unless you are claiming that Unitarianism is the very antithesis of belief in the Trinity -- which I don't believe you are saying here -- then it makes no real sense for you to have said this.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  Unitarianism, as I understand it, is the belief that God is only One Person, The Father of Jesus, and that God is NOT a Trinity.

  .

  .

  .

  The "other side" of Trinitarians would be those who do not believe in the Trinity, primarily I was referring to those who believe God is the Father of Jesus and NOT Three Persons.

  I missed your point. I really don't think anyone here would think a discussion about the Trinity would be a discussion about, I don't know, the oil spill or about anything other than the Trinity.

  @UnDisfellowshipped:

  I apologize -- there was some sort of formatting glitch in my post above. I will try to make sure that doesn't happen again, if I can figure out what happened. lol

  No apology necessary. No one but I could actually notice my many typos unless they resorted to squinting, which was a good thing. (There were just too many typos. <g>)

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  I hope we both agree that the Hebrew Scriptures teach that there is only One True God, and His Name is Jehovah. I think we have common ground there.

  .

  .

  .

  Now, djeggnog, are we in agreement so far? Do you agree that the Hebrew Scriptures teach that there is only One True God, and His Name is Jehovah?

  Agreed.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  But, what does "Only True God" or "One True God" mean exactly? Look at the following two verses, which help to explain the meaning:

  Galatians 4:8:Nevertheless, when you did not know God, then it was that you slaved for those who by nature are not gods.

  Romans 1:20:For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;

  Romans 1:25: even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.

  The Apostle Paul is explaining that there is only One God who has the true Godship [Nature of God], and this is the Creator (Jehovah). He also explains that all other gods are NOT gods by nature. And we should NEVER venerate or render sacred service to any creature, but only to the Creator.

  Djeggnog, are we on the same page so far? Do you agree or disagree with any of the things I have said?

  I'm not going to quibble, but no, Paul is not explaining anything about God's nature at Romans 1:20. He is making the point that God's qualities, His "eternal power and Godship" being among them, are perceived by the things made.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  Things we have established so far from the New World Translation:

  1:) There is only One True God. (1 Kings 8:60)

  2:) No other gods exist. (Isaiah 45:5)

  3:) The One True God's Name is Jehovah. (Isaiah 43:10-11)

  4:) There is only One God who is God by Nature and has the True Godship [Divinity, Divine Nature]. (Romans 1:20, Galatians 4:8)

  5:) Christians should never venerate or render sacred service to any creature, but only to the Creator. (Romans 1:25)

  6:) There is no other god together with the One True God. (Deuteronomy 32:39)

  7:) Anyone who preached any different god besides the One True God was to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)

  Djeggnog, do you agree with these 7 points that we just established from the New World Translation?

  No. I cannot agree with how you phrased point #4, and as to your point #6, Jehovah did make Moses God to Pharaoh, did He not? (Exodus 7:1) In fact, there are many gods mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, not the least of which were the judges of Israel (Psalm 82:1, 6, 7). Let's just see where this discussion goes. No need to respond.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  And, I also assume we are already in agreement that the Person called "The Father" in the Christian-Greek Scriptures is truly God by Nature.

  No, we are not in agreement in described Jehovah as "the Person called 'The Father" [being] "truly God by Nature." I would say that the God of the Christian-Greek Scriptures is the same God in the Hebrew Scriptures and leave it at that since this statement is quite ambiguous, and unless there is some reason for your saying more than this, I'd like to first hear that reason.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  So, now I am moving on to the Second Person, known as "the Son," "the Word," "Jesus," and many other names and titles.

  No, I cannot agree with this designation of Jesus as being any "Second Person," known also as "the Son," or "the Word." I accept that this is what you intend to prove using the NWT, so I'll just wait until we get there, if we get there.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  John opens his Gospel with this declaration: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning with God." (John 1:1-2)

  Ok.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  Then he continues writing about this "Word" who became the Man, Jesus Christ:

  "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." (John 1:18)

  Ok.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  Toward the end of John's Gospel, he writes about the Apostle Thomas' declaration of faith in the Resurrected Jesus:

  "Next he said to Thomas: "Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing." In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him: "Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe." " (John 20:27-29)

  Ok.

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  So, we can clearly see that the Christian-Greek Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is "a god," "the only-begotten god," and "My God" [of Thomas at least].

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  In addition, Isaiah 9:6 teaches that Jesus is "The Mighty God."

  What are we to make of this?

  I don't know. The book of Isaiah is not a part of the Greek Scriptures, but I agree that the title, "Mighty God," is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ.
• 
  39

  @ djeggnog

  by bennyk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  2:16), and sanctified (john 17:19; 1 cor.

  7:25; 1 john 2:1), high priest (heb.

  3:29; 4:7; titus 3:6,7; heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I read the quotes in your post, but what my reading of them told me is that you believe them to support your point of view. Your point of view seems to me to [be] ... that the WTS is not being used by God today as His prophet.... For example, in your previous post, you objected to Jehovah's Witnesses being referred to as "prophets," even though that is exactly what all Jehovah's Witnesses are.

  @bennyk wrote:

  [I]n your post 38 (page one), you asked: "has the WTS ever indicated that its words (or edicts) were inspired or that it had been given the gift of prophecy so that it could make predictions about the future? Then how can it be said that the WTS has ever been a 'false prophet'?" It is for that reason that I provided quotes indicating the Society's spurious claims regarding God 'put[ting] his words in their mouths', and being 'behind all their preaching and educational work'. I am pleased that you acknowledge that they are "prophets" for the record of their writings proves them unequivocally "false prophets". After all, the Society itself aptly states: "How will Jehovah show that such clergy prophets are fakes? By not fulfilling what they announce to be "an utterance!" or what they presume to speak in his name. He does not back up their falsehood. "‘Here I am against the prophets of false dreams,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘who relate them and cause my people to wander about [going astray] because of their falsehoods and because of their boasting.’ ‘But I myself did not send them or command them. So they will by no means benefit this people,’ is the utterance of Jehovah." (Jer. 23:32) Too bad for the people!" (w79 9/1 pp. 29-30, §29 The Royal "Shepherd" of Bible Prophecy) Yes, too bad for those who are affiliated with the Watch Tower Society.

  While it may be the common belief of some that a prophet is someone that makes predictions, not all prophets do so; in fact, many of them are such by virtue of the fact that they deliver messages to others, communications that originate with God. So if someone should speak words in God's name that He really did not say, then that person would be a false prophet. Those people that would 'employ their tongue to steal away God's words away' (Jeremiah 23:30, 31) from those for whom Christ died by declaring things to them that the Bible does not support would be declaring falsehoods, making them false prophets.

  Jehovah's Witnesses are not in the prediction-making business; we are evangelists, preachers of the good news, ambassadors substituting for Christ as representatives of God that beseech those estranged from God to become reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:20) While those who are parties to the New Covenant are an integral part of the heavenly kingdom government, New Jerusalem, their companions that assist in the work of bearing witness to Jesus are future subjects and envoys of the kingdom. Whatever it is the WTS publishes is based in part upon God's word and upon their understanding of it at that point in time. Jehovah's Witnesses prove that we are united in faith not just by their speaking the truth, but by our speaking the truth in agreement in connection with what things we teach. If any one of Jehovah's Witnesses should have a difference opinion on any doctrinal matter, they are free to voice their difference of opinion to others, even writing a letter to the WTS, for this is the means by which adjustments that would otherwise not have been made so soon are made.

  But here's the thing: During the pendency of a matter being given consideration by the WTS, no one should be running ahead of our organization and begin teaching things that have not been "vetted" by those who have the responsibility of making sure that we are all united in faith and speaking in agreement. Some that have run ahead have even been disfellowshipped for a time for their doing so -- and more than once! -- even though it turns out that their view of the matter was correct! As a result, some have had to step down from serving as an elder for a time so that they might learn how not to contradict. Things are done in God's organization in an orderly manner and by arrangement, many in the organization have needed to learn how to be patient, for readjustments do not always take place over night, like, for example, many that are acquainted with God's view on blood later discover that they do not have the same view as to the sacredness of blood as does God's organization and become extremely depressed when they fail to "abstain ... from blood" and accept one or more blood transfusions in connection with what medical treatment they receive. Can you imagine how very depressed Peter was when his faith momentarily gave out? He actually denied even knowing "the man" in a way similar to how US President Bill Clinton referred to his former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, as "that woman" with the idea that he could distance himself from Jesus -- who was not just his Lord, but his friend -- and not feel regret over knowing what he had done! Months or even years after some disfellowshipped ones that have excelled in the faith and have manifested the ability to clearly explain even the more difficult or obscure Bible topics decide that they must take some time away from God's organization so that they might more closely scrutinize their faith or whatever they feel is left of it are pulling the same stunt as did Peter in publicly denying that they were ever one of Jehovah's Witnesses when someone that did not know about their status "outs" them as having been such, which is often when the disfellowshipped one comes to realize what he or she has done and that faith-wise that they have advanced from bad to worse, and only then begin to feel regret over what they have done and over their dismal future prospects and return to us. But I digress.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Jehovah's Witnesses aren't just prophets that have been given a commission by Jesus to speak God's words to others, but we are ministers of the New Covenant kindly given by God to those who have the work of bearing witness to Jesus and in company with the faithful slave, God's anointed, as well as we, Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside the remnant of that "little flock" in the earthly realm of God's House, giving direct worship to God, day and night, in the courtyards of God's Great Spiritual Temple, which is a holy place. I'm going to be returning to this later.

  @bennyk wrote:

  The Society denies your claim: "While the 'other sheep' would not be of the 'little flock,' they would be ministers of God, too, but not ministers of the new covenant." (Worldwide Security Under the "Prince of Peace", p.108) It appears that you are not especially conversant with the Society's teachings. Furthermore, you write: "we, Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside the remnant of that "little flock" in the earthly realm of God's House, giving direct worship to God, day and night, in the courtyards of God's Great Spiritual Temple, which is a holy place." The Scriptures place the "great crowd" in the naos, not in the courtyards (cf. Rev. 11:2 Gk).

  I am going to first address the first two of your three criticisms and come back to the third one Normally, I would just ignore this second criticism, which would be the right thing to do, since no one needs to respond to every slight, or, for that matter, any slight that someone might lob at us, but I feel like I should exercise my prerogative here and just confront you on this, for as I transition to a mindset to give an appropriate response, I know my spiritual demeanor is going to be borderline, but let me say this first:

  First, you are correct in what you say about how not all of Jehovah's Witnesses become "ministers of the New Covenant," for only members of the "anointed" are parties to it, but all Jehovah's Witnesses today do have a share in this ministry of reconciliation in connection with the commission that was given in connection with the Christian ministry. In this same publication you mention in your post, however, I would like to draw your attention to the following words contained in Chapter 8, "Sharing in 'the Joy' of the 'Prince of Peace'," at paragraph 13: "Thus the 'other sheep' are serving as faithful envoys of the 'Prince of Peace.'" (Emphasis added) ["Worldwide Security Under the 'Prince of Peace'" (1986) at page 70.]

  BTW, this is really not a new thought, for back in 1982, there was an article that appeared in the Watchtower, "Carry On as Men," which include the following comments at paragraph 18: "Since the close of the first world war in 1918, and notably since the memorable year of 1935, a great crowd of persons of all nationalities have responded to that entreaty extended by the anointed remnant of the kingdom heirs.... In appreciation these are acting as the companions of the remnant of 'ambassadors substituting for Christ,' and could be viewed as 'envoys substituting for Christ' in extending the appeal to be reconciled with God to still other sheeplike ones." (Emphasis added) [w82, 10/1, pp. 24, 25]

  An envoy is typically a diplomat that represents a government, but it is usually the case that he or she has less authority than someone that serves as an ambassador for the government would have. However, the words expressed by an ambassador or envoy would be consistent with the laws and policies of their government.

  Second, I'm going to keep this short: I am "in the truth," as they say, and I've been in the truth for many years. While I was "raised in the truth," or, as we now say it, "raised in a Christian household," because at least one of my parents was in the truth when I was a child so that I cannot really remember if I ever never attended a meeting at the Kingdom Hall. (As I am kind of a wordsmith, the vagueness in what things I'm saying here at the moment is intentional.) You don't get to tell me how conversant you think me to be with respect to "the Society's teachings." What are these "teachings" exactly?

  I'm familiar with many of the things that the Bible teaches, I've conducted and am presently conducting a couple of Bible studies over the years, and then there are the weekly meetings where much teaching takes place (I'm sure you can remember the meetings to which I refer), and it's disconcerting to meet someone, albeit here in cyberspace, that used to be one of us reduced to sniping at those spiritual brothers of his that he used to give respect because you and he worshipped the same God, Jehovah. But I suppose that this is your decision, that no one forced you to make this decision, that you are here doing what things you do now because you have chosen to do them, and I believe that this is really how things ought to be, but where do you get the temerity to sum me up, to size me up, to tell me that I don't appear to you to be "especially conversant" with anything? Again, I'm going to be the rhetorical question to you again as to what only you know what you mean by the expression, "the Society's teachings": What are they?

  I have read many of the messages that have been posted to this forum and I've posted messages of my own to a few of the threads here -- even started one when a thread got derailed due to the formatting used in someone's message -- but one of the things that is oft stated here, which indicates to me a degree of immaturity -- that is, a degree of immaturity in my opinion, and I believe I'm entitled to have an opinion -- as well as a lack of understanding on the part of these immature ones as to what it is Jehovah's Witnesses actually teach in this regard (as is reflected by your slight) is that Jehovah's Witnesses put their faith in "the Society's teachings," which isn't true at all.

  Ask most anyone that has studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses without using any of our publications before they began attending our meetings and began to regularly associate with us and they will tell you that they are putting their faith in the Bible, or that they are putting their faith in Jehovah, because they do not make the association that you (and others here on this forum) make between the things we discuss in our Bible-based publications, like the Watchtower, and the WTS or even the governing body. They just don't. And why is this the case?

  Because they know the WTS to be a corporate publishing company. where our many publications and media items are produced. They know that the WTS is staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses, and they know what you are referring to here as "the Society's teachings" as "Bible teachings," and they know this because many of them are quite deft with using the Bible to prove one of the Bible teaching that they learned through their association with Jehovah's Witnesses. They know that the WTS oversees the worldwide preaching work that is taking place in some 236 lands, including 115 branch offices and 103,267 congregations.

  The WTS is not anyone's "leader," nor do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the governing body as being the masters of our faith. They are our brothers that are taking the lead to ensure that our preaching work gets done in an organized fashion, and making sure that a suitable witness is being given to those that speak a different language than our own. Why translating our publications for consumption by those that need them, for example, is difficult work, but we endeavor to use our human and financial resources wisely to get the preaching work done as practicable as humanly possible.

  The Association of Jehovah's Witnesses is not a cult; we have are no human leader, for our leader is one: Jesus Christ, who is no longer a human being, but a God in his own right, a spirit having immortality, second to Jehovah our God as will also be Jesus' spiritual brothers, Gods in their own right, spirits having immortality.

  I am conversant with what things the Bible teaches on many divergent subjects. I am also conversant with what things we publish in our publications. Please note my use of the words "we" and "our." By these words, I am referring to those Jehovah's Witnesses that are actually involved in the day-to-day work of producing WTS publications, but since I am also one of Jehovah's Witnesses, my intent is to associate myself with their work by saying "we" and "our" since we are all Jehovah's Witnesses and I support the efforts of my brothers and sisters in this fine spiritual endeavor.

  Now I want to take a moment here to parse the controversial statement I made to which you objected.

  [1] Jehovah's Witnesses aren't just prophets that have been given a commission by Jesus to speak God's words to others, [2] but we are ministers of the New Covenant kindly given by God to those who have the work of bearing witness to Jesus and in company with the faithful slave, God's anointed, as well as we, Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside the remnant of that "little flock" [3] in the earthly realm of God's House, giving direct worship to God, day and night, in the courtyards of God's Great Spiritual Temple, which is a holy place.

  I am saying here that Jehovah's Witnesses are [1] prophets, that they have been given a commission by Jesus to speak to others about God's kingdom, even though that commission was given to those of his "little flock." I am saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are [2] ministers of the New Covenant .... "in company with ... God's anointed" as well as [with] ... Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside ... that 'little flock."

  Note that I did not say here that all Jehovah's Witnesses are "ministers of the New Covenant" without the inclusion of any qualifiers, do I? Being "in the truth" for as long as I have been makes it difficult for me to make certain statements on the 'net without the use of qualifiers, since (a) I do not know who is reading my posts and (b) I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I was saying something in one of my written communications that I really didn't intend to write. Ok?

  [3] As to the third of your three criticisms by asking you whether you know where God's Great Spiritual Temple is. Do you know or don't you? You wrote that 'the Scriptures do not place the "great crowd" in the courtyards, citing Revelation 11:2, though I know not why since this verse has nothing at all to do with the "great crowd" and everything to do with the anointed.

  Tell me: How familiar are you with Ezekiel's visionary temple, the one described in the book of Ezekiel, the 40th through the 42nd chapters? God dwells in his sanctuary, in the "Most Holy" of his Great Spiritual Tabernacle, by spirit, and those of Christ's body, his anointed underpriests, are the ones represented by the spiritual house where God dwells in person, and this 'trampling' about which Revelation 11:2 speaks doesn't refer to New Jerusalem in heaven, but to the anointed remnant here on earth when they were undergoing persecution during WWI for those 42 months.

  The temple courtyard represents the righteous standing of those standing in it; those standing in the inner courtyard where only the anointed underpriests stand, and the "great crowd" are the ones that the apostle John sees in his vision at Revelation 7:9, 10, 13-15, wearing white robes and standing in the outer courtyards alongside other nonpriestly worshippers of Jehovah.

  When these underpriests complete their earthly course, they will then pass through the inner curtain of the temple that separates the "Holy" compartment from the "Most Holy," which is heaven itself (Hebrews 9:24), and upon being resurrected to immortal heavenly life, will find themselves standing in the Most Holy before the very person of Jehovah, who, along with Jesus Christ, is the temple of New Jerusalem! (Revelation 21:22)

  I am in agreement with your statement: "those turning from the authority of Satan to do God's will have already received "forgiveness of sins" (Acts 26:18), those exercising faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice had already had "forgiveness of sins" published to them through Jesus by us. (Acts 13:38; John 17:18, 20) In fact, @bennyk, everyone that puts faith in Jesus "gets forgiveness of sins through Jesus' name" at once (Acts 10:43)", but you have failed to see that the Society denies these precious promises for the "other sheep", whom they declare no part of the new covenant. ("Though he is not their legal Mediator, for they are not in the new covenant, he is their means of approaching Jehovah." [w89 8/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers] ).

  Recall that in an earlier post, I told you that you were preaching a different gospel, for you wrote:

  I do indeed speak to others regarding the "good news", viz.: ... [T]hey are reconciled to God [citations] and adopted as His children [citations], thereby becoming brothers of Christ [citation], who serves as their Advocate [citations], High Priest [citations], and Mediator [citations]. Christians thus become heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ [citations], who graciously grants everlasting life [citations]. As you see, the Gospel I preach is scriptural.

  [and]

  In fact, the Society's doctrines deny 99.8% of their followers entrance into the New Covenant, which means the so-called Witnesses are ' without hope and without God' [citation].

  At that time, you noticed the bracketed "not" was missing and wrote:

  I trust that was a typographical error.

  Now you seem to have renewed the point that you had earlier made, which point you had identified as being a part your "gospel," namely, your belief that you are somehow a party to the New Covenant. However, if you are not one of the "anointed," spiritual sonship has nothing to do with you and you have not been adopted as one of God's children, and neither are you one of Christ's anointed brothers, for only those chosen by God to be "heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ" -- the anointed -- are the ones that are parties to the New Covenant.

  This allegation you keep making here isn't scriptural, and the WTS has nothing at all to do with what things the Bible itself teaches. Cite the scripture(s) that support your particular viewpoint; prove yourself to be more righteous than what things you read in our publications. Bluster is a bluff and isn't"proof" of anything. I'm not like many Witnesses that need to consult a publication or need to do a bit of research; I actually know the Scriptures that support what things I believe, and I suspect the reason your use the very WTS publications with which you disagree is because you are not clear on the scriptures that support your beliefs.

  The WTS doesn't deny anyone of the"other sheep" any "promise," and frankly I find it interesting that you are here bashing the WTS for the things it writes, but are referring to the "other sheep," a designation that Jehovah's Witnesses use, but which Christendom does not use at all. It does appear that your "gospel" recognizes that Jesus has a "great crowd" of "other sheep" that is a party of a "new covenant," and earlier you did mention a "little flock" that I suppose you believe to be also a party to this same "new covenant" to which the "other sheep" are a party, but all of this raises a slew of questions in my mind as to your particular flavor of gospel, and here's one of them regarding your view of the anointed:

  At Matthew 24:21, 22, Jesus said:

  For then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.

  I assume that you believe yourself to be one of these "chosen ones," but would this "flesh" that will be saved perhaps be innocent babies and children that will come out of the other side of the "great tribulation" and be saved through Armageddon? I ask since many people on this forum find it anathema that Jehovah would destroy the children of the wicked at Armageddon, so who do you teach to be the "flesh" that Jesus says is going to saved?

  You write: "Examine the scriptures and you will see that for anyone to preach a promise of forgiveness of sins to anyone is to be preaching a different gospel, for such a gospel is not scriptural." Exactly. I am sorry if the word "promise" in my opening post sentence you. I proclaim these promises as a present possession, having already been fulfilled. This is in contrast to what the Society teaches. Again, it appears that you are not especially conversant with the Society's teachings.

  I have no response.

  You also write: "the holy spirit has progressively given God's people a progressive understanding of His word today, so that as world events unfold, we have been blessed -- and only Jehovah's Witnesses -- to discern the fulfillment of prophecy that others cannot since God's organization is led by God's spirit, and not inspired by it..." "Progressively" is defined as: "continuing by successive steps; favoring, working for, or characterized by progress or improvement", but the Society's record does not show successive improvement when they continually prophesy things which do not come true, or replace one false teaching with a different false teaching. The Society's claim to be led by the holy spirit perhaps borders on blasphemy of said spirit.

  I have no response.

  You write: "Now you (and others here on this forum) may think it reasonable to judge Jehovah's Witnesses by things we may have understood to be true in the past, but we have since moved on to embrace God's progressive revelatory truth as we know it today according to our current understanding..." The Watch Tower Society invited us to "judge Jehovah's Witnesses by things [they] may have understood to be true in the past": viz. "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show? " (w72 4/1 p. 197 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’) Moreover, "your current understanding" is still incorrect.

  I realize that you do not know to whom you are speaking -- not really -- so I'm just going to tell you that I have written many articles and I'm more studious than most: I do not require you or require anyone at all to post any of the articles that have appeared in any of the WTS publications. I have all of them at my fingertips and I have probably read most of them, except for a few of the Golden Age and Awake! magazines, and only to review some of the zany comments brought to my attention over the years that appeared in them. You seem to be grandstanding and speaking to others here on the forum, but I don't care that you have some "beef" with the WTS; I really don't, and (b) you seem to repeat yourself for no real reason, except that you can.

  I am going to ask that you please try to pretend that other folks on this forum won't be reading your posts, because in this post as well as in other responses to your post, you have made me feel like you are here representing their gripes against the WTS when I have nothing to do with your or their ill feelings for the WTS. Just talk to me. Thanks in advance.
• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @leavingwt:

  How would you respond to these [three] questions, if they were put to you by an outside observer, such as a practicing Hindu from India?

  (1) If the Trinity is false, why do most self-described Christians believe it?

  I know your questions were directed to @Podobear, and perhaps you might think it to be a bit unfair for me to be posting my own responses to these, but here they are:

  (1) Short answer:

  Because many people today are in spiritual darkness, being in bondage to cherished false religious teachings like the Trinity doctrine and "Once Saved, Always Saved," yet another false doctrine having no scriptural support.

  The very fact so many professed Christians today believe in the Trinity proves that they have not been taught the truth and that they do not know either God or Christ.

  (1) Long answer:

  Most of the world, and not just "self-described" (or professed) Christians, but all of those that do not know the true God, Jehovah, are living in a state of spiritual darkness, alienated from the life that belongs to God because of the ignorance that is presently in them.

  When Adam and Eve sinned against God, they forfeited their right to live forever on earth, but because of their rebelliousness and refusal to obey God, they also lost for us -- their offspring -- the right to live forever on earth as well for through Adam we became as spiritual unclean as was our father, Adam, who sold all mankind into bondage to sin and death, so that, although through no fault of our own, we became both alienated from and enemies of God.

  In His mercy though, God immediately took remedial steps to remedy our sad plight by determining to set His son's soul, or life, as a ransom sacrifice for the sins of redeemable mankind based on faith in this provision in order that He might reconcile the world again to himself by making peace with sinful mankind by declaring some among mankind righteous for life in heaven through their faith in Jesus' shed blood and assign to those chosen administrative roles in a heavenly government that would receive a heavenly inheritance and also become joint heirs with His son as kings and priests in a heavenly administration provided by God for the blessing of those that would also have the prospect of being declared right for life here on earth to reverse the effects of sin.

  God knew that it would take some time to teach sinful mankind the way of righteousness, so over several thousands of years. starting with Adam, God used men to make a written record of certain events through which record He would gradually reveal more and more about Himself and His righteous standards while progressively revealing His purpose for the earth and mankind on it.

  Just as it is true today, so it was in the beginning that God knew that there would come to be born some that were past all moral sense, even giving themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort to the extreme with every inclination of the thoughts of man's heart was being only bad all the time so starting with Adam, God raised up prophets to also record prophecies that would prove to be a source of hope to those reading who were without hope in the world, but were sighing and groaning over all of the detestable and ungodly deeds that people were saying and were being done in their midst. God even entrusted to the fleshly descendants of Abraham, one of the men that had both worshipped and feared God, a written code, a spiritual law that comprised God's sacred pronouncements, which served to make mankind's sinfulness manifest, thus making his need for a savior more acute since no sinner required to observe the Law was able to do so.

  After His having incorporated many prophecies that would help one to be able to identify the One to whom all of these prophecies point, the time came for Jesus' birth which would ultimately lead to Jesus' anointing as an adult as the Christ, in connection with his ministerial work. His ministry involved the healing of those in spiritual bondage to religious traditions that dishonored God and in his healing some that were physically sick or infirm, all of which identifying Jesus as being "the Prophet," as well as the Messiah or Christ, God's son, whose teaching underscored the need to pursue God's kingdom and His righteousness. His ministry also served to shed much light upon life and incorruption by means of the good news that was preached, not just during Jesus' ministry, but especially during the days Jesus' apostles after they had received the promised holy spirit.

  Now following Jesus' ascension to heaven came the outpouring of God's holy spirit upon Jesus' disciples, which provided spiritual enlightenment about God's purposes and removed the wall that had forced the Jews to keep the uncircumcised nations, who had been alienated from the state of Israel and were strangers to God's covenants, at bay since they had formerly been viewed as unclean by circumcised Jews, reconciling the two peoples in one body to God through the good news so that the greatly diversified wisdom of God, according to the eternal the eternal purpose of God that He formed in connection with Jesus Christ, might be made known through the Christian congregation.

  While in other generations, the sacred secret of God's will had not been made known to mankind, it was during the first century AD that it was revealed by means of God's holy spirit that God had begun choosing those among the first to exercise faith in Jesus' ransom to become joint heirs with Christ in God's kingdom as a "little flock," which choosing has continued to the 20th century. Later, it was progressively revealed that "other sheep," with the prospect of living forever on earth would have righteousness imputed to them and declared righteous as friends of God were being gathered for salvation and so many people today are now flocking to God's organization.

  Many people today continue to walk in the unprofitableness of their minds, for they are unknowingly in spiritual darkness, some in spiritual bondage to false religion, because Satan the Devil, the god of this system of things, has blinded the minds of these unbelievers. But what they aren't being taught is that one must continue in the faith, established firmly on the foundation, Jesus Christ, and steadfast, not allowing anyone or anything to shift them away from the hope of that good news.

  So the fact that many professed Christians today believe in the Trinity is proof that they have never really heard Jesus in their churches, never really were taught by means of the Christ, because had they learned from the Christ they would never have embraced this false doctrine they cherish, nor "Once Saved, Always Saved," which is another false doctrine for which there exists absolutely no scriptural support at all, for the spirit of God is a force that actuates the mind enabling the Christian to don a new personality created according to God's will in true righteousness and loyalty.

  (2) Why does your faith hold the issue as a litmus test, but most self-described Christians do not?

  I'm not exactly sure that you mean, for many people that are now Jehovah's Witnesses came to abandon their belief in the Trinity once they were convinced to that this was not something that the Bible teaches. There are some folks that never become Jehovah's Witnesses though because they are unable to shake their belief in the Trinity, but they continue to attend meetings with us and they do so with the understanding that we do not believe in or teach this doctrine.

  (3) Do you feel very grateful that you came to be in association with true Christians, given that the odds are very much so against you?

  Yes.

  @peacedog:

  If you are in the mood for discussion, please explain your views on the nature of Jesus Christ (given that Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13 eliminate the possibility of his being an angel) while we wait for debator to answer my post.

  When anyone reads the first two chapters of Hebrews without theological underpinnings, it is clear that the apostle Paul is not just speaking generally about the angels of God through whom God communicated to the Hebrew forefathers "long ago," but Paul is referring to one angel in particular through whom God spoke, who he calls "a Son ...through whom [God] made the systems of things," and who we learn, based on Paul's quoting Psalm 102:25-27 and applying this psalm to Jesus, to have been responsible for laying "the foundations of the earth" as well as the heavens, and which we also learn, based on Paul's quoting Nathan's prophecy at 2 Samuel 7:14 to Jesus, to be a very distinguished angel. (Colossians 1:15, 16)

  Contrary to what you evidently believe to be true about the Lord Jesus Christ -- and you are certainly entitled to your opinion -- neither Hebrews 1:5 nor Hebrews 1:13 eliminating the possibility of Jesus having been an angel both before he became a human being and after his resurrection and ascension to heaven. Anyway, obediently getting actively involved in the disciple-making activity now taking place during these last days as Jesus commanded for a witness and living our lives in accord with the good news is what we must do if we truly believe in Jesus and are exercising faith in the ransom provision that means everlasting life. Certainly arguing over whether Jesus was 100% human and 100% God (having a 200% hybrid nature?) or whether Jesus is Jehovah, but not the Father, and even being awarded the gold trophy for winning such an argument just isn't the same as our telling others about the good news in order that we and those we tell might be saved.

  Now engaging others in such arguments that have obtained since the fourth century AD over Jesus' divinity to no real purpose is useless, for nowhere do we read in the Bible that the one that is awarded the win in such contests will be saved, do we? But what we do read in the Bible is about those who have been reconciled to God through Jesus through their acceptance of the ransom 'provided they continue in the faith,' and that it is only 'those that have endured to the end are the ones that will be saved' (Colossians 1:23; Matthew 10:22). At any rate, the following is a brief "commentary" on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, and when reviewing these two chapters, ask yourself the question, For what purpose does the apostle Paul have here talking about angels? What is his point?

  HEBREWS 1:1-4

  1 God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

  While God had formerly raised up men who served as His prophets to communicate His will, it was during the last days of the Jewish system of things that God spoke to men through His Firstborn Son and Heir through whom God made the world, Jesus Christ. Jesus reflects God's glory for, like His heavenly Father, Jesus is now also a Spirit, and by his word he manifests the same authority as does his heavenly Father over all of the things kindly given to him by God, and after Jesus had paid the ransom to cancel mankind's debt to God as was raised up, he was exalted to a position at God's right hand and given an office higher than that held by or given to any of the other angels of God.

  HEBREWS 1:5, 6

  5 For 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"? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him."

  Out of all of God's angels in heaven, to which of them did God ever declare to be his son, or to be his father. When during his second coming God next sends his Firstborn into the world, all of God's angels will also serve him even as they serve God directing their worship to God through Jesus.

  HEBREWS 1:7-12

  7 Also, with reference to the angels he says: "And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire." 8 But with reference to the Son: "God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners." 10 And: "You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. 11 They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out."

  Of all of God's angels, who are servants that provide a public service, God's Firstborn was the only one that was declared to be God's Son, the only one who, as such, has come to inherit God's throne due to his integrity and love for righteousness, so that his rulership has come to have greater than that over which other rulers anointed by God were given. As the One that had in the beginning been given the responsibility for the creation of the earth and the heavens, Jesus now has an indestructible life, so that while the things he made are not indestructible and can perish, he will never die and so he lives forever.

  Since Jesus now possessed immortality, which the other angels do not, it would not inappropriate to think of Jesus as being a God in his own right since the very foundation of his throne is God, as long as we do not forget that is Jehovah from whom Jesus received his throneship, his power and his great authority. (John 20:28; Revelation 3:12)

  HEBREWS 1:13, 14

  13 But 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"? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

  To none of the other angels did God ever offer a seat at His right hand or to give to any one of them authority over earth's inhabitants, even though all of them are faithful servants of God whose role is to actively minister to the needs of God's servants on earth.

  HEBREWS 2:1-4

  2 That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things heard by us, that we may never drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved to be firm, and every transgression and disobedient act received a retribution in harmony with justice; 3 how shall we escape if we have neglected a salvation of such greatness in that it began to be spoken through [our] Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him, 4 while God joined in bearing witness with signs as well as portents and various powerful works and with distributions of holy spirit according to his will?

  The importance of listening to the things that the Lord Jesus Christ says cannot be stressed any greater than to point out that if in the past, when the angels of God as God's representatives were sent as spirits to transmit messages to God's servants on earth, the word they spoke proved to be firm and lifesaving, then how much more lifesaving would the word spoken by Jesus that we hear today be with God bearing witness through distributions of holy spirit, for we will certainly drift away if we do not pay strict attention to what things God says to us through the Lord Jesus Christ.

  HEBREWS 2:5-9

  5 For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But a certain witness has given proof somewhere, saying: "What is man that you keep him in mind, or [the] son of man that you take care of him? 7 You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet." For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; 9 but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man].

  Jehovah has not subjected the new earth that God is making to angels, but given dominion over it to His Son, who was made a little lower than the angels, but then was crowned with glory and honor and appointed as administrator over all things in the heavens and on earth after he had tasted death for the sake of all mankind. That God left nothing that isn't subject to Jesus is what makes the resurrected Jesus a much more powerful god than the other angelic sons of God, but the God maker is still Jehovah.

  HEBREWS 2:10-13

  10 For it was fitting for the one for whose sake all things are and through whom all things are, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Chief Agent of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all [stem] from one, and for this cause he is not ashamed to call them "brothers," 12 as he says: "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the middle of [the] congregation I will praise you with song." 13 And again: "I will have my trust in him." And again: "Look! I and the young children, whom Jehovah gave me."

  As the Chief Agent of life for those who are being sanctified through sufferings and are being declared "sons of god," Jesus is not ashamed to call his followers his brothers even as he himself suffered.

  HEBREWS 2:14-18

  14 Therefore, since the "young children" are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly partook of the same things, that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil; 15 and [that] he might emancipate all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery all through their lives. 16 For he is really not assisting angels at all, but he is assisting Abraham’s seed. 17 Consequently he was obliged to become like his "brothers" in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test.

  Just as those of Abraham's seed ("the 'young children'") for whom Jesus died are human beings, Jesus himself become like them, a human being, that through his death he might free them from enslavement to fear of death in Satan's world, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest for their sake and a suitable ransom for mankind's sins, which experience has given Jesus a much better vantage point than of the other angels when it comes to rendering aid to those under trial since they have never experienced the suffering that he and his brothers on earth have suffered.
• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @garyneal:

  What does Jesus mean when He says, "for unless you believe that I am He?"

  The controversy surrounding the Lord Jesus Christ is whether he was, in fact, the "Son of man" (notice that Jesus uses "Son of man" at John 8:28 and "Son" at John 8:36, both referring to his title at Daniel 7:13) that is to say, the promised Messiah, or "Christ," that the Jews had been expecting, "the prophet that was to come" (John 6:14, 7:26). You should also notice that in this same verse -- John 8:24 (from which you have quoted) -- and at John 8:28, the Greek words _egó eimí_ are rendered in both verses as "I am he," while at John 8:58, the same Greek words are rendered as just "I am," without the addition of the word "he," evidently for theological reasons to make it appear that Jesus uses the title, "I AM" at Exodus 3:14.

  Many of the folks that make this theological argument do not know that the Greek Septuagint doesn't use the words "_egó eimí_" at all, but instead renders this specific portion of Exodus 3:14 as _ho On_, which means "The Being" or "The One who is," and _ho On_ ("the One") is applied to Jehovah at Revelation 1:8 and at Revelation 11:17.

  Of course, there are some folks that do know this, but they have an agenda. When you get to John 8:56, Jesus is still making the point that he is the Messiah, for he says there that Abraham's faith led him to rejoice in the prospect of the arrival of the promised Seed, the Messiah, for at Genesis 22:18, we read God's promise to Abraham that it would be "by means of [Abraham's] seed" that all nations of the earth would bless themselves, Jesus also indicated at John 8:58 that he had been in a position to have observed Abraham's faith in action since in Jesus' prehuman existence, before Abraham had not even been born, Jesus had existed.

  @Podobear:

  Similarly, Jesus takes on the attributes of his Father and sometimes the functions too.. but he is a "creation" both in a heavenly and earthly sense. So, No, he is NOT Jehovah.

  Adding to what you have said here, Jesus is referred to at Revelation 3:14 as being "the beginning of the creation by God," so not only is Jesus God's firstborn, but he is God's first creation, who the apostle Paul states, at Hebrews 10:12, 13, had been biding his time sitting at God's right hand "until [when] his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet" (Psalm 110:1).

  However, it is when the end of the "appointed times of the nations" (Luke 21:24) had arrived that God "again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth" (Hebrews 1:6) to rule "in the midst of your enemies" (Psalm 110:2) during his invisible presence after having girded on power in his having dealt a blow to his heavenly enemies in 1914 when Jesus began ruling as king (Revelation 12:7-12), and having received an anointing from God as a prophet, as high priest, and in his kingship.

  Paul distinguishes Jesus from the rest of God's angels, for Jesus is the only one of the angels to whom God refers as "my son," underscoring the fact that Jesus' anointing was "more than [had any of Jesus'] partners" received from God, their anointing having only been as a king (Hebrews 1:5-9).
• 
  457

  TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Undisfellowshipped:

  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.

  I have read many of the threads in which you either started or in which you were an active participant, @Undisfellowshipped, but I'm pretty sure that you are not able to discuss your faith in Trinity, let alone debate it reasonably with others (you wrote "debate and reason"), so I'm just going to do my best here to help you to focus on your own topic, assuming this is something that you believe you are prepared to do. Anything extraneous that you decide to inject into this discussion will not be given any consideration and such will be unceremoniously "shown the door," as it were, since these discussions about the Trinity do tend to go off the proverbial rails, and I, like the man, Jehonadad (about whom I'm sure folks that have read the Bible and do not just make John 1:1, John 8:58 and John 20:28 their "gospel" and whole reason for living), do not tolerate any rivalry toward Jehovah. I suppose it's just a character defect, so I've learned to live with it.

  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. So here is his chance.

  Were someone to issue to them such a taunt, I can appreciate how one might be a bit reluctant to step into the fray and ruckus that typically accompanies such "anything goes" discussions had about the Trinity. If I happen to someone that believes the things the Bible says to have been written to Jehovah's Witnesses that they might survive the coming day of judgment, then it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that I must also be of the belief that all other religions, whether they be of the "Christian" variety or any of the non-Christian and atheist "faiths," are false, regardless of whether any one of these Christian or non-Christian faiths should believe the Trinity to have some merit or believe Elvis is still alive. Now I don't know Bane and have only read some of the messages that he has posted to this forum, and while he strikes me as being someone that is full of faith, he also comes off as someone that enjoys patting himself on the back for the things of the spirit that he has come to learn as if he did not receive what things he knows from someone else. (1 Corinthians 4:7)

  So, I challenged BANE to a debate on the Trinity using only the New World Translation. He has yet to respond. So I am now issuing that challenge to him and ANYONE else who would accept.

  All I ask is that you do your best to stay focused, for I will withdraw from this discussion (or debate) if you should introduce arguments that have nothing at all to do with proving the Trinity to be a Bible-based doctrine using the New World Translation of the Holy Scripture.

  But BEFORE you start debating, PLEASE look at the following list which EXPLAINS exactly what I mean when I say TRINITY:

  The historical Trinity Doctrine of the Christian (Protestant and Catholic) churches has always been this:

  [1] There is only One True God by Nature.

  [2] There are Three Distinct Persons who share equally the Nature of God.

  [3] There are NOT three different GODS (that is the false doctrine of Tritheism or Polytheism).

  [4] There is NOT one PERSON who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of Modalism).

  [5] However, each Person of the Trinity does have His own "role" or "function." The Son willingly obeys the Father. The Spirit willingly obeys the Father and the Son. (This is known as "Functional Subordinationism")

  [6] Each of the Three Persons is called "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") and "God" in the Bible.

  [7] The Father, Son, and Spirit are EQUAL in Nature, Essence, Attributes, Qualities, Power, Knowledge, etc.

  [8] The Father, Son, and Spirit deserve EQUAL worship and praise and prayer from Christians.

  Why does it matter that the Protestant and Catholic churches teach the Trinity doctrine? There are non-denominational churches that teach that embrace the teaching on the Trinity, too, churches like yourself, for example, since I did read one of your messages in this thread in which you indicated that you do not promote any "church or religious group," so why bring this up when it is enough that you and your church of one is out here in the world defending the Trinity?

  Anyway, I numbered each of the eight (8) items you mentioned above so that we can focus on just these items as you go on to prove each one of them using the NWT Bible. Note that excluded from your list are the following items which are unacceptable in a discussion of the Trinity where the discussion centers around the three Persons said to be one God, for there is nothing at all "three-ish" in any of the following six (6) items that had been included in your post:

  * Jesus IS Jehovah, but He is NOT The Father or The Spirit.

  * The Son is the One who died on the Cross, NOT The Father or The Spirit.

  * The Father is the One who sent The Son into the world. (Jesus did NOT send Himself)

  * The Son was praying to The Father. (Jesus was NOT praying to Himself)

  * While Jesus was on earth (and even after He returned to heaven), The Father had a greater position or rank of authority within the Godhead.

  * The Son took on flesh, and became 100% Human in addition to being 100% God. That is why He had certain human limitations while He was on earth.

  I don't say that you cannot or even should not believe any of these things in your list that are excluded, for you are certainly free to believe whatever it is you wish to believe, even as I also have such freedom, but you don't get to "stack the deck" by tossing into this discussion things that are totally irrelevant to it.

  Let me be the first to apologize on behalf of all Trinitarians for the behavior and actions of those who have treated you wrongly. Also, I do want to make it clear to everyone that I am NOT promoting ANY church or religious group. I only want people to study in the Scriptures and THINK for themselves just like the Beroeans did at Acts 17:11.

  Why do you feel the need to be among the first "to apologize on behalf of all Trinitarians" for anyone's behavior and actions? This is a forum and if others should get upset with anything at all that they read here on this board, then they should not be here, and they can remedy the problem by turning off their computers (which is an extreme!), or by visiting a website like Yahoo! for entertainment, for this web site is not a Kingdom Hall, not a church and it isn't some revolutionary substitute for a place of worship. This forum is like a coffee shop where people might talk about anything, e.g., the Bible, politics, sports, what have you. Some folks come to websites like this to win Bible-related arguments; others come due to their having a bit of curiosity.

  Now if Bane thinks that he can be a participant on a website like this one and report the time he spends on them, maybe he'll read this post and come to realize that coming to this website does not constitute sacred service, does not involve direct worship to God, and therefore cannot be counted or reported as if what things Jehovah's Witnesses should decide to do for entertainment, like spending the day at an amusement park with their family is somehow the same as our rendering direct worship to God; whatever it is we do for entertainment is not sacred service. Being part of a group assigned to clean up the Kingdom Hall or to provide services at a convention of Jehovah's Witnesses would both be sacred service, direct worship to God, but Jehovah's Witnesses cannot report such time spent in carrying out what assignments they might receive to the best of their respective abilities.

  Why do you care that folks are making a "study in the Scriptures" and that they are thinking for themselves if you are not, as you say, here promoting either a church or a religious group? Do you think that encouraging others to take up a study of the Scriptures, as you are doing, isn't the same as your promoting a sect? When you say this, are you not also speaking to the atheists among us here? Why should they be interested in joining your sect when most atheists do tend to think for themselves, and typically they don't profess believe in a god, in any god (let alone a "Trinity" God!), which is kind of why these folks often refer to themselves as atheists?

  If you actually study the Bible and you truly do not believe that the Trinity is taught in the Scriptures, then you should not believe it.

  Ok.

  If you truly believe that the Bible teaches Unitarianism, then you should believe that.

  Please explain why someone that doesn't believe that the Trinity doctrine has scriptural support should not believe in Unitarianism? I don't follow your logic here, considering that Trinitarianism is not the same as Unitarianism, and unless you are claiming that Unitarianism is the very antithesis of belief in the Trinity -- which I don't believe you are saying here -- then it makes no real sense for you to have said this.

  And I agree that everyone should be open to hearing arguments from the other side, and should be open to discussing the Scriptures and different interpretations of them.

  I'm open to hearing your arguments for Trinitarianism, but what is this "other side"? I'm willing to discuss and listen to your interpretation of the Bible texts in the NWT that you claim provide support for the Trinity doctrine, but why should others be open to listening to your arguments or to discussing the Scriptures and your take on what they mean?

  With that being said, when it comes to belief in the Deity of Christ that is a very serious important belief necessary for salvation (according to most churches), so yes you are going to meet a lot of people who will not accept Unitarian beliefs because then they would be at risk of going to Hell for eternity.

  So what does any of this have to do with this topic, this discussion? Forget all of that and let's just focus on this topic that you started here as we "reason on the Scriptures about whether God Almighty is a Trinity, or is only One Person." Ok, @Undisfellowshipped, your turn.