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.
Will,
Thanks for explaining. This thread is a discussion of whether or not the Trinity is taught in the Bible. Those of us principally involved have long ago made the decision that the Bible is from God and is true. If that is not your belief, I'm sure there are many who would be happy to discuss it with you in another thread. Since you've been a member of this forum for over a year, I'm sure you are aware of that.
Herk
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.
Will,
Thanks for sharing, but would you kindly tell us your main point? I read your lengthy post, but found myself wondering time and again what you were trying to say. For example, you wrote:
The image of the invisible God. ( ) Hmmmm How do you explain to a limited, yet evolving human mind, something that is almighty, eternal, no beginning, no end, all knowing, omnipresent, our creator, our judge etc., etc., yet is invisible? How would you comprehend this? Or better yet, how would you teach this.
Isn't that why we have the Bible? Do you feel the Bible doesn't provide us with good enough answers?
Most people, even little children, have no problem comprehending the fact that there is a grand Creator behind the universe. Common sense tells us that the creation has a creator. We see ourselves as persons, and we read in the Bible that God is also a person. We read that he created man in his image. Why should any of that be too difficult for anyone to comprehend? I'm curious what your answer might be.
Herk
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.
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.
LittleToe,
You wrote:
we know that Satan loves to counterfeit things?
Would you mind telling us some examples of what has been 'counterfeited' by Satan? I'm curious.
Herk
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.
LittleToe,
While I have no idea what you're getting at with your question about whether God is a title or a nature, I will say this: According to the Bible, God is both a name and a title. (Psalm 69:30; Daniel 2:20; Romans 2:24; 1 Timothy 6:1; Revelation 16:9) God's nature is divine. (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20) Ultimately, Christians will also partake of the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4)
You wrote:
Something else that hasn't been tackled, is this issue. Which Trinity came first? Was it truly the Hindu or Egyptian ones, when we know that Satan loves to counterfeit things?
History records that the Trinity of ancient Babylon was the first. There is no clear-cut teaching of a Trinity anywhere in the Old Testament. God is never said to be "Jehovah" and "Someone Else" and "Another Someone Else." Jehovah always spoke of himself as "I," "me," and "I myself."
Why is there so much certainty that the Catholic religion emulated Pagan religions, rather than these religions springing up from an emulation of the reality of God?
The only way to see no connection between Catholicism's Trinity and pagan Trinities is to ignore history. Even Catholic sources admit the influence of Aristotle and other Greeks among the "church fathers" who formulated the Trinity doctrine.
Taking that tack, could we not also suggest that the Unitarian concept also has pagan predecessors? After all, those who came to the table at Constantinople, would have been familiar with Zeus. Also, Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) worshipped Aton
Yes, those familiar with the Trinity of Zeus, Athena and Apollo were there. But I've never seen anything about the worshippers of the Egyption god Aton being present.
Herk
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.
UnD,
You wrote:
I still see no point in discussing anything with Herk because what I say will probably just be twisted around and turned into something I didn't say.
How are we supposed to know what you're talking about if you don't give a single example?
You wrote:
Herk never even did respond to my important question asking whether or not the Scriptures that say "Calling on the Lord" and "Calling on Yahweh" were talking about Prayer, and if they weren't talking about Prayer, what were they talking about? In fact, I don't think I have seen anyone comment on that question.
If you will go back to page 30 and two thirds down, you will find that Lew gave a scripturally thorough answer to your question. But you rejected his Bible-based answer. Instead, you feel that your own interpretration of what you found in Strong's overturns the more up-to-date information that Lew presented. And so, you feel that you have every right to see "prayer" as the basic meaning of "call on the Lord," even though that is not the meaning of the Greek.
Just because you ignore our answers, that doesn't mean we've ignored your questions. And, speaking of questions being ignored, Lew wrote on that page:
And again I ask, why does Jesus' claim that another is the only true God at John 17:3 go unanswered and get ignored? Do others place so little merit in Jesus' words? Should not his words carry more weight than any of the disciples? If Jesus himself believes another to be the only true God, who can actually follow Jesus and still claim he is the one God mentioned in the Bible?
You seem to have a fascination with Johannes Greber, even to the point of actually reading page after page of what you believe is demon-inspired information. I have never read what Greber wrote, and I don't care to. Why should it be of interest to Christians?
It's amusing to me that Greber has become such a big deal to you. Here you have but one man who did not believe in the Trinity and who was also involved in the occult. I suppose you would like us to believe that all non-Trinitarian Bible translators were and are involved in the occult.
You wrote:
I would have thought Herk would have commented on those Verses, after all, if Herk is correct about everyone who prays to Jesus is a false teacher, then those Verses would prove that the Apostle Paul and several other Christians were false teachers, and that would be a huge discovery!
But suppose the opposite is true of what you have written in that paragraph? Suppose it is true that the Scriptures nowhere authorize us to pray to Jesus? Suppose praying to Jesus is contrary to his specific instructions on how to pray? What, then? Doesn't that prove that you are indeed a false teacher? Doesn't it prove that you are twisting the words of Paul and others to make them conform to your own personal whim and fancy?
The entire Scriptural record testifies that the Father is the only One to whom prayer should be directed. (Psalm 5:1, 2; Matthew 6:9) The evidence is emphatically to the contrary for prayers to Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
Plenty instruction is given to pray to the Father, but there is absolutely none that commands us to pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. In some instances, it seems that prayer was offered to Jesus, but a close examination of the Greek terms shows conclusively that no one ever prayed to Jesus. Neither has anyone in the Bible prayed to the Holy Spirit.
You wrote:
Also, Herk, your comments about the Trinity being Pagan are not a real good argument at all. I was dealt that lame argument for 18+ years in the Watchtower, so if you think I haven't had that beat into my brains, you're dead wrong.
My question to you is: What changed your mind? What authorities have you read that show the Trinity did not have a pagan origin? Any well-known encyclopedia will show where the "Christian" Trinity concept originated. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia shows how the "church fathers" wrestled with the doctrine and ended up using pagan terminology to make sense of it.
You wrote:
Satan tries to deceive everyone and makes counterfeits of everything that is Holy, so why wouldn't he make counterfeit "Trinities"?
That makes not a bit of sense. Which came first, the truth God revealed to Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, or the pagan Trinities? History clearly shows that the first Trinity in history originated on the plains of Shinar in the worship of Nimrod's mother and of himself in the role of father and son. The Trinity was clearly stated among pagan believers, and each member of their Trinities had clearly defined names. But there are no clear-cut similar statements in the Bible. Nowhere do we read, for example, that the ancient Jews worshipped Jehovah and So-and-So and What's His Name. Jehovah alone was God. He spoke of himself as "I" and "me" and "myself."
You wrote:
You might as well say that the Flood of Noah is Pagan too because several Pagans believed in a worldwide flood.
Only a stupid person would make such a remark. Is the Bible wrong because JWs teach that it's the Word of God? Was Peter not an apostle because the Catholic Church says he was? There is absolutely no logic or sensibleness in your foolish statement.
You wrote:
I will make this extremely clear, so clear that I don't even think Herk can twist it around: IF 1 John 5:7 was NOT written by the Apostle John, it SHOULD NOT be included in the Bible! IF someone added it later, God and the Bible CONDEMNS that person!
Who is twisting who? I quoted your exact words. Dishonestly, you now try to have us believe you didn't do some rationalizing with that verse. You now want to hide the fact that your musing was on the fact that it is interesting that "the Word" was used instead of "the Son." There was no reason at all for you to make the comments you made unless you were considering that possibly - just possibly - the verse wasn't added to the Bible, after all.
Herk
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.
UnDisfellowshipped wrote:
The Watchtower used Greber's Bible to try and support their Translation of John 1:1. Do you know who Greber was? He was a SPIRIT MEDIUM who contacted DEMONS!
Why should that bother Trinitarians? The principle source of the Trinity doctrine is occultism. The pictures I presented several days ago are examples of how the Trinity concept was engrafted into the Catholic Church and, in turn, into Protestantism. Hindu symbolism is just one of many pagan idols these churches have used as they embraced the Triune-God concept. At the Roman Council of Nicea many of the bishops in attendance practiced paganism and eastern mysticism in their own states and provinces, which at the time were under Roman law. If we look deeper into this issue we will find many more symbols the pagan Trinity nations conceived, and we will clearly see how they were engrafted into the modern Trinity dogma, starting at Rome. Eastern mysticism, Hinduism, Kabbalism, Gnosticism, Talmudism -- all these practices and beliefs have made inroads into modern Trinitarian theology. It is this occult Trinity spirit and concept that promoted the Inquisition, anti-semitism, and the burning by both Catholics and Protestants of innocent people who would not accept the Trinity. The Trinity is an occult symbol of war with the truth of the Bible.
The Roman Church and other denominations that uphold the Trinity will vehemently deny this. However, the study of many scholars, archeologists and historians confirms it. Many books have been published that trace Trinity worship, as it is known today, back to ancient Israel in Babylonian captivity. The apostate people adopted and observed the teachings and practices of Nimrod, thereby corrupting the true worship of the God of Israel. The Old Testament proves this time and time again. From these practices we find the birth of Kabbalism, then Mysticism, Hinduism, Egyptian Mysticism, and Gnosticism. Down it traveled from generation to generation until it reached Rome at the Nicene Council of 325 A.D. From that point in time, the Babylonian Trinity concept entered the New Testament age and has become the most cunning and divisive heresy in the churches that claim Jesus as Lord today. It is the primary reason why we have sectarian denominations in the church.
So, it is ironic and hypocritical for Trinitarians to point the finger at one occultist who didn't believe in the Trinity when the very foundation of the entire Trinitarian system is rooted in occultism.
Herk
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.
More translations that say "the one" or "him" instead of "me" at Zechariah 12:10:
At John 10:37, even the KJV quotes Zechariah 12:10 with "him" instead of "me":
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.
Joseph,
Thanks for your kind words regarding the sources I listed for John 1:1. I really can't take full credit since the work of compiling them was done by someone else. I merely arranged them in date order.
I read your book about a year ago, and I agree that Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 come nowhere near providing "proof" for the Trinity teaching.
Lew W,
Perhaps you are aware that Satan is called ho theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4. That, of course, does not mean that he is Almighty God. He is to the world, but not in the sight of the true God and those who worship him.
So, Trinitarians have a very weak case when they teach that Jesus is Almighty God simply because Thomas exclaimed to him, "The Lord of me and The God of me!" As the Septuagint shows, even King David and his descendants upon the throne were addressed as ho theos. (Psalm 45:1, 6)
The Hebrew also bears that out. It always amuses me to see Trinitarians reject their own scholars when they show David was called "God." The following is something, for example, that UnD and S-Chef both scoffed at in earlier posts, which is a footnote in the NIV Study Bible:
"Ps 45 A song in praise of the king on his wedding day (see title). He undoubtedly belonged to David's dynasty, and the song was probably used at more than one royal wedding. Since the bride is a foreign princess (see vv. 10, 12), the wedding reflects the king's standing as a figure of international significance (see note on v. 9). Accordingly he is addressed as one whose reign is to be characterized by victories over the nations (vv. 3-5; cf. Ps 2; 110). As a royal son of David, he is a type (foreshadowing) of Christ."
The footnote for verse 6 says:
"45:6 O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as 'god.' The Davidic king (the 'L ORD 's anointed,' 2Sa 19:21), because of his special relationship with God was called at his enthronement the 'son' of God (see 2:7; 2Sa 7:14; 1Ch 28:6; cf. 89:27). In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa 9:6). Such a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8-9)."
Thanks for your always good thoughts on this topic.
Herk
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.
Trinitarians don't like to be labeled as gullible, but the facts are the facts. Note two examples in the above posts. UnDisfellowshipped wrote:
. . . I don't use 1 John 5:7 in my discussions about the Trinity. However, I do find it interesting that it says "The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit" instead of "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit". I find it interesting because Jesus is only called "The Word" in the writings of the Apostle John, and it would seem to me that if I was going to add those words to the Bible, I would have put "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit".
LittleToe wrote:
I heard recently that 1 John 5:7 is regaining some credibility, due to some more ancient manuscript finds.
Because it supports the pagan doctrine of the Trinity, UnDisfellowshipped is willing to give some benefit of the doubt to a verse that was deliberately added to the Bible. He tries to see some value in a scheme to make the Bible teach something that it doesn't. So, he is suspicious that it was added despite what even Trinitarian scholars have to say about it. He writes that "it would seem to me that if I was going to add those words to the Bible, I would have put 'The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.'" Obviously, this is meant to suggest that perhaps there is something divine about the addition, after all, since it says "The Word" instead of "The Son." What other reason could UnDisfellowshipped have than his hope that maybe the added text belongs in the Bible? Rather than show disdain for something that will bring a curse upon someone, he tends to want to show support for the cursed person.
"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:2)
"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it." (Deuteronomy 12:32)
"Do not add to his words or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." (Proverbs 30:6)
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18)
LittleToe hopefully looks for the impossible. How can one even imagine that 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Bible? It didn't appear in even one Greek manuscript until the 16th century when the Reformation began! It was absent from the Bible for 3/4 of the time from Christ until now! It's like someone adding to the American Constitution in the year 3300 AD and claiming that Thomas Jefferson wrote it.
But watch, these Trinitarians will make an attempt to defend their biased view. Instead of accepting the fact that they truly are gullible and ready to believe anything that supports this pagan teaching, they will try to show they had some good reason for saying what they said.
Herk
