Posts by herk

17

Question about the Annointed.

by patricia in

jw
friends

when you were still a jw, what was your concept of what happened to those of the "annointed" who had died.

i remember the scoffing and tittering when we were out in field service when a householder mentioned their belief that their loved ones were in "heaven".

we were told to ask them "what was heaven like?, were there pearly gates, did people eat up there, did they have emotions?

Your experience with Klein was similar to mine. Actually, there were times when both Knorr and Klein showed they had it in for each other. Knorr told me once that the only reason he keeps Klein around is because he's a good writer. Otherwise, and these are Knorr's exact words: "The man is a nut, a screwball!"

Another time, when I was alone with Klein, he ranted and raved about how everybody on the governing body was in agreement except for one man, "one man who is holding up the works and just won't give in." Then he said, "I'll tell you who that one man is! His name is spelled NHK!" Again, those were the exact words.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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

herk

Meadow77 wrote:

John 10:35-36 -God refers to those as heirs in eternal life as gods.

WRONG! It refers to ancient judges in Israel as "gods." This is an example of how poorly Meadow77 reads what the Bible actually says.

In this same passage is where Christ A. states that he and the father are one.

Yes, and it is also where the Jews asked him if he was the Christ. They did not ask if he was God. Jesus answered: "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in my Father's name, these testify of me." (John 10:24, 25) He performed miracles in his Father's name, not in his own name. Any government agent who represents a king is not the king himself. He is ONE with the king and does the king's bidding, but he is not the king. Meadow77 is totally blind to what Jesus is really saying. Nothing will open her blind eyes, even what Jesus said later by explanation: "Holy Father, keep them in your name, the name which you have given me, that they may be one even as we are." (John 17:11)

John 5: 18 Jews accuse Christ of blasphemy

Yes, they did, but they were wrong. Jesus healed on the Sabbath and claimed to be the "Son" of God. Like Trinitarians today, the Jews back then misunderstood Jesus. In their minds, he was claiming to be God, even though he never said he was God. Meadow77 won't admit that. She blindly reads into everything, just as the hypocritical Pharisees did, that Jesus claimed to be God despite his not having done so even once.

John 5:23-Jesus again makes himself equal with God

Why does Meadow77 say this? Because she accurately understands what Jesus meant? Far from it! Jesus said, "all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father." In Meadow77's mind, that means the Son is to be honoured EQUALLY as the Father is honoured. She completely disregards the way "even as" is used in other passages. For example, "My own know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father." (John 10:14) To be consistent, Meadow77 would have to say that Christians know Christ no less than the Father does. According to her definition of "even as," Christians know everything about Christ just as much as the infinite mind of the Father knows Christ. She also ignores Jesus' prayer to the Father that his disciples "may be one even as we are." (John 17:11) He also asked "that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us." To be "in" God and to be "one" in the Trinitarian sense, Christians would necessarily have to be part of God. But, blindly, Meadow77 insists that being "one" means one thing in John 10 and something else in John 17.

Blasphemy to the Jews was making oneself equal with God. They state this everytime they refer to Christ and his blasphemy.

FALSE! Blasphemy was making the claim to be equal to God. Jesus never claimed that. He claimed to be the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God, nothing more. Just as the Jews lied about him, Trinitarians like Meadow77 still do today.

She also lies about the "worship" of Jesus. She rejects the knowledge that the Greek word for "worship" (proskuneo) at Matthew 28:9 is the word always used with reference to honouring men and angels. Christ is never given the "worship" (latreuo) that only God receives.

She lies too about the name Emmanuel. It simply means "God with us," a name similar to many other names that indicate something special about the relationship between God and the one so named. In Genesis 28:19 we read "And he called the name of that place Bethel." Bethel means "house of God." Since the place was named "house of God," does this mean that God lived inside this house? According to the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, "The name Immanuel could mean 'God be with us' in the sense 'God help us!'" (Vol. 2, page 686) Meadow77 is a prime example of how the Trinitarians constantly base their arguments on catch words or phrases and then quickly gloss over the details. The angel did not say concerning Jesus that "HE shall be Emmanuel." He said that "his NAME shall be Emmanuel." There is a big difference between saying "His name shall be 'God is with us'" and saying "He shall be God with us."

Pretending to know Bible terms in their original languages, Meadow77 wrote:

A man and his wife become one in spirit but this does not mean they become the same person. The word for one in Hebrew used in this passage is echod. The term echod in Hebrew does not denote absolute unity but rather composite unity.

First of all, the comparison of a husband and wife with the Trinitarian God is so ridiculous that one wonders how people can say it with a straight face. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. They are two separate entities. But the Trinity is ONE entity composed of three persons. Even after marriage a man and woman are still what they were before. They are separable while the members of the Trinity are inseparable. Anyone who claims to see a resemblance is either just plain stupid or is out to deceive and mislead.

Secondly, in most instances the Hebrew word echod does indeed denote a solitary or "absolute unity." It is a bold-faced lie to deny that fact. Abraham is called echod in Isaiah 51:2. Does that make him a trinity? Many other examples could be given.

For another example we could use Numbers 13. Here echod is used when referring to a cluster of grapes. Only one stem of grapes is represented, but we know that there are many grapes on one cluster. Hence the use of echod. Where else do we see echod? Deut 6:4 The Lord our God is one(echod) Lord. HHMMMMM

The text actually states: "Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs." Which is the echod, Meadow77? Is it the grapes or the cluster? The CLUSTER is obviously meant, but as the saying goes, "You can't see the forest for the trees."

Regardless of interpretation the fact that Jesus was the word is not disputable. Your attempt to change Jesus from the word to words is weak.

Why is it weak? Simply because you say so? John 1:14 says the word "was made" or "became" flesh. Just as the same word of God became a book that we know as the Bible, God could just as easily have made that same word into a flesh and blood person. That is what the "word" became, something it was not before it became "flesh."

John 1:1 states, according to the popular NASB: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Now give that the Trinitarian twist: "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was with God, and Christ was God." If Christ was with God (the Trinity), he could not have been God (the Trinity). There might be some evidence for the pagan doctrine if John had said something like "the Word was with the Father, and the Word was God." But John doesn't say anything like that.

We are not to limit Gods existence to our human reasoning powers.

The answer from Jesus and all other biblical non-Trinitarians: "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we KNOW." (John 4:22) "This is eternal life, that they may KNOW you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (John 17:3)

Jehovah gives his glory to no-one Isaiah 42:8, 48:11. Now read John 17:5. Does God contradict himself?

The Bible DOES contradict itself when it's read as Meadow77 reads it. She should read the context in Isaiah, and note that Jehovah is making a contrast between himself and all FALSE gods and idols. Jesus RECEIVES glory from God. He is EXALTED in order to receive it. But this is something temporary. Jesus will someday hand back to God some of what has been GIVEN to him "when he hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For he has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)

While on earth he did not give up his deity.

Where is the text that says he had deity while on the earth?

When Jesus says that the Father is greater than him, he is correct.

Yes, he was correct. He was not God. He was a man. If he was God in any way or fashion, he would not have been lesser than the Father in any way, according to the requirements of the false, pagan Trinity doctrine.

The angels are never said to have been created in Gods image, only man.

Then how did angels make their appearance - as women, as animals, as UFO aliens? Be sensible!

We are told that He created man in his image. The only sense this passage makes is if he is speaking to someone who is already co-eternal with him.

Meaning what? That each of us is a trinity? If that makes sense to Meadow77, little wonder she doesn't understand the Bible and has accepted a pagan deity that was invented and created by men.

It is odd that you would admit that the Holy Spirit is an extension of himself, but God. Are you a completely separate person from your spirit?

Does Meadow77 have any idea what "extension" means? Her arm is an extension of herself. Does that mean her arm is "completely separate" from her as a person? In the same way, the Bible clearly shows that the Holy Spirit is an extension of God. It is called his hands and his fingers, for example, when we compare texts like Psalms 33:6 and 104:30 with texts like Psalms 8:3, 6; 19:1; 102:25; Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 1:10.

Clearly the Spirit has a personality, you can deny this but the scriptures make it plain. Acts 5:3-4 Acts 13:2-4 Acts 21:10-11

It isn't unusual in the Scriptures for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have "children." (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are spoken of as being kings. (Romans 5:14, 21) While some texts say that the spirit "spoke," other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matthew 10:19, 20). Compare Acts 20:23 with 21:10, 11. At 1 John 5:6-8, not only the spirit but also "the water and the blood" are said to bear witness.

Meadow77 would like to teach others what the Bible says about God. She should first learn to read the Bible correctly and not lie about what she has read.

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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

herk

SwedishChef wrote:

I don't agree with any of the symbols of the Trinity. It is wrong to make them, and besides, they look ridiculous. ... By the way, the Catholics were the ones to make all the statues and paintings supposedly representing the Trinity. (Nothing makes me more mad than to be called a Catholic.)

Are Protestant illustrations any better? One of their illustrations is a chain. But a chain with 3 links isn't a chain when at least one of those links is separated from the others while down here on earth, and especially when one of those links is dead and in the grave. So, this illustration teaches tritheism, a pagan polytheistic doctrine.

Another silly illustration is of an actor playing three successive roles in a stage drama. That puts God in a box and limits him to only 3 ways in which he can function. It also takes away the actual personhood of two of the members of the pagan Trinitarian deity since an actor can pretend to be only one person at a time.

Government and a corporation are also used as illustrations. While these may involve more than one person, none of the members when separated from the others is the government or the corporation in themselves. Thus, the pagan Trinity has its godhood in the hands of a committee of three individual entities.

Protestant Trinitarians have used the three states of water: solid, liquid, and gaseous. That just goes to show that their pagan deity is not a person but something without mind and personality. Water is not in all three states at the same time, but the God of the Bible and his Son are always different persons at the same time. Trinitarians who use this illustration are so blind that they fail to see that it reflects another heresy known as modalism.

The rays of the sun and a rainbow, which also liken God to the creation rather than the Creator, are also mindless illustrations.

Using mathematics, they blindly cannot see that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. God the Father + God the Son + God the Holy Spirit = 3 gods! Instead, they say 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. They don't know how to read the Bible correctly, and on top of that they can't even count. To justify their poor math, they say God's one essence has multiple centres of personhood, and thus they limit the Father to being merely a third of God.

Pretending to have great learning, they use a geometric illustration. This is the most widely used Protestant illustration of the Trinity. It's the triangle. A triangle has three corners, which are inseparable from, and simultaneous to, one another. So, in this sense, they say it's a good illustration of the Trinity. Of course, God is infinite and a triangle is finite. God is a person, but a triangle is not a living, thinking being. Rather than show great learning, Protestant Trinitarians are just as silly and ridiculous in their thinking as their pagan Catholic forebears.

Then, the illustration is used to show that Christ in one corner of the triangle has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. In that corner a circle is drawn to illustrate the human nature. The circle is welded to the triangle to show that the human nature is touching, but not mixed with, the divine. Human and divine natures are said to exist side-by-side without confusion in the Son. His two natures are said to be "conjoined in one person." Or, in Christ there are two entities and one person, whereas in God there are three persons and one entity. The ultimate confusing result is a two-entity person attached to two others who are one-entity persons. Trinitarians fail to see that their illustration shows 4 persons in their pagan God instead of the 3 they are trying to show.

Protestant Trinitarians also use an anthropological illustration. Since humankind is made in the image of God, it seems reasonable to them that men and women bear some snapshot of the Trinity within their being. So they visualize the human being as a "trichotomy" of body, soul and spirit. But a body is dead without soul and spirit. Since the nature and persons of the Trinity cannot be separated, this is a poor illustration. It is also a poor illustration because body, soul and spirit cannot represent separate persons with independent minds and personality.

No matter what illustration is used, whether Catholic or Protestant, it is faulty, silly and absurd, just as is the false, pagan and blasphemous doctrine that it is supposed to explain.

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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

herk

SwedishChef wrote:

Herk, it seems to me like your running out of ideas, now you have to make jokes?

Why should I introduce something new when SwedishChef ignores what I've already written, even when I re-post some of it? Next, he'll be asking "What posts have I ignored?" Trinitarians are so hell bent on trying to prove their false pagan doctrine that they just can't deal with anything that highlights their gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what the Bible says.

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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

herk

Meadow77 is just like nearly every Trinitarian I've ever met, and yet it really bothers her when it's pointed out to her that she's like the rest of them. Here's what she wrote, which is just another proof that Trinitarians prefer their own viewpoint over the Bible:

Herk says that Christs death was over kingship or possibly because he forgave sins

She knows she's lying and twisting the facts. She knows I showed her plainly from many texts why Jesus was executed. She also knows she's lying when she writes "possibly because he forgave sins." Yes, Meadow77, the only grounds you have for believing the Trinity is your deliberate effort to believe what the Bible doesn't say, to believe only what you want to believe. Not only do you lie about what the Bible says, but about those who sincerely try to show you what it actually does say. How sad.

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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

herk

Would Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah and John the Baptist have been able to understand these symbols of the Trinity? Would the apostles???

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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

herk

The Trinity

Jesus said, "Whom do men say that I am?"

And his disciples answered and said, "Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or another of the old prophets."

And Jesus answered and said, "But whom do you say that I am?"

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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

herk

Q.) How many Trinitarian Scholars does it take to change a light bulb?

A.) First, they must hold a council to decide whether the light bulb should be soft white or cool white.

Then, they must hold another council to determine whether they should accept fluorescent or incandescent lighting.

Following their acceptance of incandescent over fluorescent lighting and soft white over cool white, several other councils of hundreds of clergymen over a period of hundreds of years must decide whether there is to be but one filament contained in one light bulb, or whether there are to be three filaments in the one bulb.

Additional centuries must pass before several groups of clergymen protest the use of soft white incandescent bulbs and begin bickering over whether to convert to fluorescent lighting or return to cool white incandescent bulbs.

Finally, some non-Trinitarians come along and install a new light bulb patterned after the original bulb and turn on the light.

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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

herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

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

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