Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

I will say that the Jehovah's Witnesses unlike say the LDS are much less interested in looking into history, archeology, and the scholarly world in supporting their ideology. Although an example of the WTS being caught with its pants down was that of Bruce Metzger (renown scholar and professor from Princeton). They used his name in supporting their view of Jesus being a creation instead of the creator and he requested they remove his name from their literature. It's happened numerous times with numerous scholars.

I'm not sure about the Justin Martyr part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr#Doctrine_of_the_logos

I don't know anything about any of that though, I've just heard of Justn Martyr. My view of the trinity lies squarely in scripture, so I'm just curious about what else the trinity believer has to support their view using the bold?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I'm not sure about the Justin Martyr part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr#Doctrine_of_the_logos

I don't know anything about any of that though, I've just heard of Justn Martyr. My view of the trinity lies squarely in scripture, so I'm just curious about what else the trinity believer has to support their view using the bold?

For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures.

Dialogue with Trypho CHAPTER XXXIV

In terms of how one supports the view of the trinity, well its no different than how one supports their belief in God, the resurrection, or anything else that revolves around faith. There are many verses in Scripture that support the divinity of Jesus and there are verses that don't support his divinity. Like anything it comes down to the reader how he/she will interpret.

I can understand the justification for someone not believing Jesus is God depending on their understanding and appreciation for the different terms used to describe him listed in the NT and how those terms would have been understood by the contemporaries. One issue I have with say the JW's is their understanding of first born. They interpret it as 'FIRST CREATED' when in fact prototokos wasn't about the literal creation of a person but their place in society and family. Just as Isaac was referred to as firstborn as was Jacob even though both weren't the actual first born of their fathers. Jesus being referred to as firstborn isn't regarding a literal creation.

 

[JGS]

Dialogue with Trypho CHAPTER XXXIV

But he also mentioned them as distinct so I'm not sure there was a misunderstanding of his message as much as his message is confusing. However, one of the things mentioned is the fact that one must be careful when translating Greek to English.

In terms of how one supports the view of the trinity, well its no different than how one supports their belief in God, the resurrection, or anything else that revolves around faith. There are many verses in Scripture that support the divinity of Jesus and there are verses that don't support his divinity. Like anything it comes down to the reader how he/she will interpret.

That's not entirely accurate. There is not even remotely the same amount of scriptural proofs backing up the trinity. Most of the ones mentioned aren't even proofs but verifications of something else. This usually leaves John 1:1 as the only support and then one must go back to the translation as well as ignore the rest of John 1. So Scripture wise, the trinity doctrine is so unproveable that a mandate had to be set OUTSIDE Scripture to maintain it's existence in tenet. That's the extent of the history we've seen...unless there's more. I'm admittedly far from a trinitarian scholar since it doesn't interest me except to the extent that it makes me un-Christian not accepting it.

I can understand the justification for someone not believing Jesus is God depending on their understanding and appreciation for the different terms used to describe him listed in the NT and how those terms would have been understood by the contemporaries. One issue I have with say the JW's is their understanding of first born. They interpret it as 'FIRST CREATED' when in fact prototokos wasn't about the literal creation of a person but their place in society and family. Just as Isaac was referred to as firstborn as was Jacob even though both weren't the actual first born of their fathers. Jesus being referred to as firstborn isn't regarding a literal creation.

This has been mentioned before but it seems the end result is that Jesus had a beginning point/purpose whereas God did not- meaning that the trinity was never described as part of the Alpha & Omega that God is described as. God evolved into the trinity correct?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

But he also mentioned them as distinct so I'm not sure there was a misunderstanding of his message as much as his message is confusing. However, one of the things mentioned is the fact that one must be careful when translating Greek to English.

One of the difficulties I have seen with those who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus is they're often confused as to what a person who does accept the trinity actually believes and means. I would argue that the same thing is happening in the situation with Justin.

That's not entirely accurate. There is not even remotely the same amount of scriptural proofs backing up the trinity. Most of the ones mentioned aren't even proofs but verifications of something else. This usually leaves John 1:1 as the only support and then one must go back to the translation as well as ignore the rest of John 1. So Scripture wise, the trinity doctrine is so unproveable that a mandate had to be set OUTSIDE Scripture to maintain it's existence in tenet. That's the extent of the history we've seen...unless there's more. I'm admittedly far from a trinitarian scholar since it doesn't interest me except to the extent that it makes me un-Christian not accepting it.

Again, we are back to the same issue of interpretation and understanding. For those who do accept the trinity they'd argue there are tons of scriptural support. For those who deny the trinity they'd argue that these scriptural proofs are incorrectly interpreted. It's a vicious cycle. It isn't just John 1:1, its also colossians 1:15-18 for example. The problem arises when the NWT adds [OTHER] next to all in regards to Jesus being the creator of all [OTHER] things.

The WTS admittedly insert this word knowing there is simply no manuscript support to do so. There is truly NO manuscript that has been found which has the word [OTHER] inserted here. The WTS has allowed its christology and theology to influence how it TRANSLATES the scripture which is unfortunate.

This has been mentioned before but it seems the end result is that Jesus had a beginning point/purpose whereas God did not- meaning that the trinity was never described as part of the alpha & omega that God. God evolved into it correct?

Jesus had a beginning for those who don't fully appreciate the context of say 'prototokos' (firstborn). The WTS have allowed their belief to influence how they interpret. Also, the phrase 'ALPHA AND OMEGA' follows along the same route as firstborn. It isn't meant to be taken literally but rather symbolically of who he is and what he is. The beginning and end symbolizes something much greater than just the A and Z of the Greek alphabet if you will.

And no, God didn't evolve into a trinity. The fact that you are even asking that question tells me that either you don't fully understand what the trinity is or what those who do accept the teaching of the trinity believe. Either way that is something you will want to look into even if its just to assist in discussions such as these.

Edit: Regarding your statement that you're only interested as far as not believing in the trinity disqualifies your being Christian would you disqualify trinitarians as being Christian?

 

[JGS]

One of the difficulties I have seen with those who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus is they're often confused as to what a person who does accept the trinity actually believes and means. I would argue that the same thing is happening in the situation with Justin.

That might be a pot calling the kettle black statement.

Again, we are back to the same issue of interpretation and understanding. For those who do accept the trinity they'd argue there are tons of scriptural support. For those who deny the trinity they'd argue that these scriptural proofs are incorrectly interpreted. It's a vicious cycle. It isn't just John 1:1, its also colossians 1:15-18 for example. The problem arises when the NWT adds [OTHER] next to all in regards to Jesus being the creator of all [OTHER] things.

They would argue only because there are tons of support- historical & Biblical. It's like ones who don't believe in the trinity are chastised solely for being able to explain why they don't while trinitarians only have to list one verse out of thousands to back of theirs.

All a non-trinitarian asks for is proof that more than compensates for the overwhelming proofs literally disproving the trinity. It's not a tall order to ask considering my salvation is on the line. I want to live after all.

Personally, I don't think it can be done which is why I avoid bringing it up but trinitarians have a hard time letting go. How could it be possible to explain the trinity when not just most singular verses but entire books, instructions, doctrines, & principles in the Gospels and the rest of the Bible point to no trinity being teached or even encouraged?

The WTS admittedly insert this word knowing there is simply no manuscript support to do so. There is truly NO manuscript that has been found which has the word [OTHER] inserted here. The WTS has allowed its christology and theology to influence how it TRANSLATES the scripture which is unfortunate.

What Jehovah's Witnesses do with their translation of the Bible is irrelevant to the notion that the trinity isn't teached including Colossians 1:15-18.

Jesus had a beginning for those who don't fully appreciate the context of say 'prototokos' (firstborn). The WTS have allowed their belief to influence how they interpret. Also, the phrase 'ALPHA AND OMEGA' follows along the same route as firstborn. It isn't meant to be taken literally but rather symbolically of who he is and what he is. The beginning and end symbolizes something much greater than just the A and Z of the Greek alphabet if you will.

Of course it's symbolic. This still doesn't explain why they would use a word that describes a start for someone that doesn't have a start. It makes no sense which is why it needs explanation. I admit to not getting that, but I'm not sure why it's privileged information since there's no verse indicating that "When we say firstborn, we don't really mean that except symbolically which it really doesn't mean firstborn that way either"

And no, God didn't evolve into a trinity. The fact that you are even asking that question tells me that either you don't fully understand what the trinity is or what those who do accept the teaching of the trinity believe. Either way that is something you will want to look into even if its just to assist in discussions such as these.

I don't understand it. I thought I've made that clear. What was made clear to me is that trinitarians don't understand it either by their own admission.

Since you mentioned this article, I went ahead and looked it up (Not hard to do) http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_03.htm

I'm curious if a typical trinitarian can even come close to explaining their view as JW's can in explaining theirs because, right or wrong, they're schooling the ones on the board right now with one little web page and they've probably got decades of stuff on it.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That might be a pot calling the kettle black statement.

They would argue only because there are tons of support- historical & Biblical. It's like ones who don't believe in the trinity are chastised solely for being able to explain why they don't while trinitarians only have to list one verse out of thousands to back of theirs.

Who is chastising you? I am not. I haven't said what I believe. I am not treating you one way for not believing in the trinity .

All a non-trinitarian asks for is proof that more than compensates for the overwhelming proofs literally disproving the trinity. It's not a tall order to ask considering my salvation is on the line. I want to live after all.

Again, we fall back to the same point. If I show you 3 verses that support the divinity of Jesus you will most likely ask for 4. If I offer 4 you will say its not enough since I can't offer 5.

Personally, I don't think it can be done which is why I avoid bringing it up but trinitarians have a hard time letting go. How could it be possible to explain the trinity when not just most singular verses but entire books, instructions, doctrines, & principles in the Gospels and the rest of the Bible point to no trinity being teached or even encouraged?

Should we discount the death and resurrection of Jesus because the Tanakh doesn't teach it? Would you care to discount homosexuality being sinful since only 2 or 3 places state so? Would you care to discount that only 144,000 go to heaven since its mentioned only a couple of times and never once is it associated with a locked number in heaven? Would you discount Jesus is Michael the Archangel even though the Bible never states this is the case while the WTS teach it is true?

What Jehovah's Witnesses do with their translation of the Bible is irrelevant to the notion that the trinity isn't teached including Colossians 1:15-18.

It's very relevant actually. You are a Jehovah's Witness, are you not? If you are a JW then you are trusting in the WTS in some capacity to feed you and teach you what is true. if this same organization is willing to add onto the Bible with the word OTHER even though there isn't any manuscript evidence to do so then how can you be so sure other things they have taught are true?

Of course it's symbolic. This still doesn't explain why they would use a word that describes a start for someone that doesn't have a start. It makes no sense which is why it needs explanation. I admit to not getting that, but I'm not sure why it's privileged information since there's no verse indicating that "When we say firstborn, we don't really mean that except symbolically which it really doesn't mean firstborn that way either"
I don't understand it. I thought I've made that clear. What was made clear to me is that trinitarians don't understand it either by their own admission.

Again, its quite simple. What the word means for you is different than what it meant for those to who the gospels were authored for. The WTS doesn't accept that Jesus was worshiped since they understand the significance of him accepting worship would either mean he was God or he sinned so they use the word 'obeisance' instead. Words have power and meaning. The term 'firstborn' carries a particular meaning when it comes to the promise between God and Abraham, God and David, God and Jesus. Only Jesus is credited with having created all things.

Since you mentioned this article, I went ahead and looked it up (Not hard to do) http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_03.htm

If you have access to the writings of the Church Fathers (they're free on the web) read the words of these individuals. You will see that every one of them accepted the full divinity of Jesus and yet the WTS states otherwise. Its unfortunate that they feel the need to misrepresent men who died almost 2000 years ago.

I'm curious if a typical trinitarian can even come close to explaining their view as JW's can in explaining theirs because, right or wrong, they're schooling the ones on the board right now with one little web page and they've probably got decades of stuff on it.

So its a contest? Who can out 'school' the other one? Funny, I thought this was about finding truth. I suppose I was wrong.

 

[JGS]

Who is chastising you? I am not. I haven't said what I believe. I am not treating you one way for not believing in the trinity .

I'm not meaning to say you are so apologies. However, I am saying that it could be just as easy for trinitarians to misunderstand Martyr as well.

Again, we fall back to the same point. If I show you 3 verses that support the divinity of Jesus you will most likely ask for 4. If I offer 4 you will say its not enough since I can't offer 5.

I'm far more demanding than 3 or 4 verses on seomthing that means my life. I require hundreds of verses. I already accept the few verses that support the trinity, I just don't think they are related to the trinity doctrine. On top of those, I accept the other verses which teach contrary to the trinity. Basically, I only need so many proofs to disprove the trinity, not to prove God & Jesus are seperate which is clearly the default position of the Bible.

Should we discount the death and resurrection of Jesus because the Tanakh doesn't teach it? Would you care to discount homosexuality being sinful since only 2 or 3 places state so? Would you care to discount that only 144,000 go to heaven since its mentioned only a couple of times and never once is it associated with a locked number in heaven? Would you discount Jesus is Michael the Archangel even though the Bible never states this is the case while the WTS teach it is true?

That's not a fair argument. We aren't taking a handful of verses and stretching them nor are we taking one principle and turning it into a core Doctrinal point. JW's are not twisting Scripture to match a their belief. The Scriptures have their back on this one. There is overwhelming evidence that God was individual and superior to any other creation including his son. The day that people learned Jesus was resurrected is the day it became a part of canon/history. I know next to nothing of the 144,000 so i can't comment on it although there is pretty clear evidence to half the scriptures discussing earthly rewards and half the scriptures discussing heavenly rewards. Micahel being Jesus isn't a leap considering that only one archangel is mentioned and he's a leader. Unless Jesus is too busy being God, it kind of makes sense that he is Michael. (EDIT- None of that matters)

The point is when discussing worship, the commandment has remained to worship God. Jesus himself said this without any hint whatsoever that he and God were equals. To switch from a one God belief to a trinity is to literally change the belief which makes no sense if God had always been a trinity.

It's very relevant actually. You are a Jehovah's Witness, are you not? If you are a JW then you are trusting in the WTS in some capacity to feed you and teach you what is true. if this same organization is willing to add onto the Bible with the word OTHER even though there isn't any manuscript evidence to do so then how can you be so sure other things they have taught are true?

I'm not but I do happen (By chance no less) to agree about the trinity and Hellfire. So I don't need to believe everything they say to realize that what they say about those two subjects are right on the money. reading that article, it's as clear as day that they are right on the trinity with none of the issues you mentioned you had with them while studying.

Again, its quite simple. What the word means for you is different than what it meant for those to who the gospels were authored for. The WTS doesn't accept that Jesus was worshiped since they understand the significance of him accepting worship would either mean he was God or he sinned so they use the word 'obeisance' instead. Words have power and meaning. The term 'firstborn' carries a particular meaning when it comes to the promise between God and Abraham, God and David, God and Jesus. Only Jesus is credited with having created all things.

This isn't true.

If you have access to the writings of the Church Fathers (they're free on the web) read the words of these individuals. You will see that every one of them accepted the full divinity of Jesus and yet the WTS states otherwise. Its unfortunate that they feel the need to misrepresent men who died almost 2000 years ago.

Looking at just one of them, Clement, who was around right toward the end of the NT being completed, the trinity was not a teaching. Now as the "fathers" get closer to the council period, it would not surprise me in the slightest that a more trinitarian approach is taken.

So its a contest? Who can out 'school' the other one? Funny, I thought this was about finding truth. I suppose I was wrong.

Of course it is. If one thought is wrong to the point that my belief is "different than what it meant for those to who the gospels were authored for", you are saying (not alone I might add) that I'm not a Christian since that is who the Gospels are written for. Schooling is necessary to back that up and I'm a little surprised you would think I would accept that description of myself - JW or not.

I can't help but accept that as a challenge or an insult. In any event, I rise or lower myself to it because I want to know the right answer. The right answers seem to be coming from a little JW web page.

I am more than ready to accept the trinity as truth if there was something that presented it as such.

BTW, by the end of this, I do think you're chastising me.

 

[ServBotPhil]

Christianity hadn't been established yet so there wasn't a faith to be baptized into. Basically, everyone prior to Christianity couldn't be baptized since it didn't exist. However, Jesus made it a requirement for his disciples. The person hanging next to Jesus wasn't a disciple yet.

Acts is very good to see this because it shows to what extent people went through to ensure that someone was baptized- even Paul. What salvation means for those not Christian and thus not baptized is entirely dependent on the religious belief since the Bible gives two different answers and every religion I've heard from has a different answer.

Jesus affirmed his faith. That's Christianity. Baptism existed before Jesus taught. You don't have to be a disciple to be saved. You just have to have faith. Living a righteous life is appreciated and pleasing to G-d.

 

[Fedos]

That is not really "clear" by any stretch of the imagination based on the verse you mentioned.

I quoted a passage in the Old Testament no less where the Spirit of God is described as moving upon the face of the waters in creation. The Spirit was there in the beginning, just like God the Father and God the Son.

I'm still not grasping why angels are different based on that reasoning.

Angels don't have souls. They are just spirits with bodies. From a Biblical perspective, human beings are the only creations of God who have souls.

But that doesn't require a trinity belief. It's like saying the police, judge, & jury must all be the same in order to have a workable justice system.

Why not? It doesn't matter what our belief is, it matters what is true. What I described is what the scriptures teach.

It's a requirement for Christians in most instances. If you are a card carrying Christian, the requirement by Jesus (& his disciples) is baptism. Actually baptism is the card.

Paul's role was not that of a baptizer, but that did not mean that the ones he was speaking to weren't baptized. His role was as a missionary. Others baptized. He was basically lessening his fame since he was being ridiculed for it. From the looks of things, it appears that:]

- ALL Christians are supposed to be baptized. It's a requirement (Matthew 28:19,20). Possible exceptions to this are:
1. Babies (Not necessarily minors from our viewpoint) since they can't choose & who tend to be rewarded based on their parent's choices.
2. Non-Christians in line for salvation. This would of course include faithful Jews or ones who lived before the Mosaic Law like Abraham. However, did any of those mentioned indicate that they would be in heaven like Christians seem to be so keenly aware of? Not sure and no time to research.
3. The unrighteous. Possibly ones who lived and died without knowing God or lacking the ability to learn about him. Again, not sure what their reward would be though.

Water baptism does not save you. You can go down a dry sinner and come up a wet sinner. The only thing that saves you is believing in the work of Jesus Christ. When Jesus was pressed on the point by the Jews of the day he replied with the following:


28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

St. John 6: 28

And when Paul was pressed by the jailer he replied with the following:

30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Acts 16: 30-31

What? Nicene Creed is no where in the bible...it came after the bible. 400 years after to be exact. You need to read up on history.

The point I was trying to make (if you have visited the link I provided) is that the Nicene Creed is scriptural. What the Nicene Creed is, is taken from the scriptures.

I'll state it again...the concept of Trinity comes from Tertullian. The reason why the Bible doesn't mention the word "Trinity" is because it's a foreign concept to OT and NT. It is also why there is no Trinity doctrine in the Bible.

And again, the Bible does not say the word 'demon' but Jesus cast out demons from people. The Bible does not say the word 'rapture' but the doctrine is explained.

The answer that Jesus gave was firm, indicating that the expected messiah is not a descendant of David because David called him his Master, and the father does not call his son. It is known that Jesus - according to Matthew and Luke is a descendant of the prophet David - he was often called "O' son of David" (look in Matthew: 1:1, 9:27 and Luke: 19:38).

In the Book of Mark, Jesus said, “David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?" (Mark: 12:37).

It is also mentioned in Luke " And he said unto them, how they say that Christ is David's son? David himself said in the book of Psalms, the LORD said unto my Lord, Sit in my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. David therefore called him Lord, how is he then his son? " (Luke: 20:40-44).

What Jesus quoted was a passage from the Old Testament, Psalms 110: 1: 'The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' This is a text that indicates that Jesus is the divine Son of God, as he does indeed sit at the right hand of God, as the New Testament teaches.

 

[ServBotPhil]

You are just being ignorant, if i were to pick a christian denomination that actually knows what they are doing it will be JW's. Whenever you ask them question they refer to the bible which is the rightful source of the information they are preaching, not only are they well equipped but they are also polite. Your comments lead me to believe you don't know jack shit about them.

OTAH (On Topic At Hand): The bible has more verses that shows that Jesus is not God, in-fact their are so many accounts were Jesus was praying to his father in the heaven. Jesus also taught his disciples the "Daily prayer" in which himself also used. If Jesus was God how can he pray to God?

I've been "evangelized" to by JWs handing me a watchtower magazine, and after reading it, you how it's ridiculous. Read for yourself here. otah: How do you pray to G-d? How did Jesus teach up to pray to G-d?

 

[JGS]

I've been "evangelized" to by JWs handing me a watchtower magazine, and after reading it, you how it's ridiculous. Read for yourself here.

So to be clear believeing the Bible is inspired, God is the creator (We'll skip Jesus is his son of course), Bible prophecy, preaching, baptism, and putting God's interests first are ridiculous?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

I've been "evangelized" to by JWs handing me a watchtower magazine, and after reading it, you how it's ridiculous. Read for yourself here. otah: How do you pray to G-d? How did Jesus teach up to pray to G-d?

You made my point, everything on that page had a bible quotation next to it. If you think that their teachings are so different or wrong from christian teachings why don't you read those bible quotations and verify it for yourself?

EDIT: Ironically the first paragraph in the link you provided me had this quotation: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28 (Jesus Speaking)

I've been "evangelized" to by JWs handing me a watchtower magazine, and after reading it, you how it's ridiculous. Read for yourself here. otah: How do you pray to G-d? How did Jesus teach up to pray to G-d?

You are not familiar with the lords prayer? "Our father in the heaven.............."

 

[ServBotPhil]

So to be clear believeing the Bible is inspired, God is the creator (We'll skip Jesus is his son of course), Bible prophecy, preaching, baptism, and putting God's interests first are ridiculous?

"Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally." Uses creation as an example. "God’s This is an actual heavenly government with a King—Jesus Christ—and 144,000 corulers, who are “bought from the earth.”" Of course, G-d cannot lie. (Skipping the Trinity debate.) "Jehovah’s Witnesses obey the laws of the land when these do not conflict with God’s laws." Fails to mention Kosher. "Jehovah’s Witnesses baptize only those who, on the basis of a thorough study of the Bible, want to serve God as one of his Witnesses."

 

[ServBotPhil]

You made my point, everything on that page had a bible quotation next to it. If you think that their teachings are so different or wrong from christian teachings why don't you read those bible quotations and verify it for yourself?

EDIT: Ironically the first paragraph in the link you provided me had this quotation: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28 (Jesus Speaking)

You are not familiar with the lords prayer? "Our father in the heaven.............."

Hypothetical questions are hypothetical.

if i were to pick a christian denomination that actually knows what they are doing it will be JW's.

Aren't Catholics organized?

 

[Chaplain]

The watchtower says that Michael the Archangel is Jesus.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_11.htm

This is the main reason they are a cult.

 

[JGS]

I quoted a passage in the Old Testament no less where the Spirit of God is described as moving upon the face of the waters in creation. The Spirit was there in the beginning, just like God the Father and God the Son.

You are saying that just because thee holy Spirit was there with Jesus at the creation of the earth that means they are all clearly a part of a trinity? Are you implying that nothing existed prior to the creation of the earth? When during the creation period to God create the angels that guarded Eden?

Angels don't have souls. They are just spirits with bodies. From a Biblical perspective, human beings are the only creations of God who have souls.

Not sure that true or why it's so significant. Nephesh/nefesh is used a lot of different ways in various translation although it has the same meaning - soul.

But anyway, Numbers 31:28 may disagree with you depending on the tranlations. But to be clear, the original Hebrew is the same regardless of translation.

Why not? It doesn't matter what our belief is, it matters what is true. What I described is what the scriptures teach

All I'm saying is that it isn't what the scriptures teach.

Water baptism does not save you. You can go down a dry sinner and come up a wet sinner. The only thing that saves you is believing in the work of Jesus Christ. When Jesus was pressed on the point by the Jews of the day he replied with the following:


28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

St. John 6: 28

And when Paul was pressed by the jailer he replied with the following:

30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Acts 16: 30-31

29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

It doesn't save by itself, but it's definitely a requirement, just like believing in God is a requirement to be a Christian, but requires more than that.

However, baptism is not the only thing and I'm not sure I ever said it was. In fact this is what I said:

Imo, it is usually Yes, but it's the last part of a process.

 

[JGS]

The watchtower says that Michael the Archangel is Jesus.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_11.htm

This is the main reason they are a cult.

How does that make them a cult unless they worship Michael rather than who they say they worship - God?

"Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally." Uses creation as an example. "God’s This is an actual heavenly government with a King—Jesus Christ—and 144,000 corulers, who are “bought from the earth.”" Of course, G-d cannot lie. (Skipping the Trinity debate.) "Jehovah’s Witnesses obey the laws of the land when these do not conflict with God’s laws." Fails to mention Kosher. "Jehovah’s Witnesses baptize only those who, on the basis of a thorough study of the Bible, want to serve God as one of his Witnesses."

I don't understand what the issues are and I'm lost on the Kosher thing.

 

[Fedos]

You are saying that just because thee holy Spirit was there with Jesus at the creation of the earth that means they are all clearly a part of a trinity? Are you implying that nothing existed prior to the creation of the earth? When during the creation period to God create the angels that guarded Eden?

The angels were created before God created earth.

5 Who determined its dimensions
and stretched out the surveying line?
6 What supports its foundations,
and who laid its cornerstone
7 as the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
Job 38: 5-7

They observed creation. The thing is, before there was anything, there was God, and God exists as a triune being.

Not sure that true or why it's so significant. Nephesh/nefesh is used a lot of different ways in various translation although it has the same meaning - soul.

But anyway, Numbers 31:28 may disagree with you depending on the tranlations. But to be clear, the original Hebrew is the same regardless of translation.

Angels don't have souls. They can't die like humans, they are immortal. When we die, we either go to be with God in the third heaven, or we go to hell.

All I'm saying is that it isn't what the scriptures teach.

If this is your position, this is your position. I can't make anyone believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or that God exists as triunity.

It doesn't save by itself, but it's definitely a requirement, just like believing in God is a requirement to be a Christian, but requires more than that.

However, baptism is not the only thing and I'm not sure I ever said it was. In fact this is what I said:

The thief on the cross just asked God to remember him when he came into his kingdom. He didn't have time to be baptized. This is similar to those who are on their death beds, and pray the prayer of salvation just before they die. If it is true in the thiefs case, if he didn't need to be baptized, then it is true in all cases. Making baptism a neccessity for salvation is like saying you have to take communion to remain Christian, it's not true.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Man, this page just reinforces why I stopped debating religion on the internet. Everybody talks on top of one another in an attempt of 'winning or as others put it 'schooling each other'.

 

[JGS]

They observed creation. The thing is, before there was anything, there was God, and God exists as a triune being.

Again, how do you arrive at that based on the scripture you mentioned if the angels were there before the Holy Spirit was moving to and fro before the waters?

Angels don't have souls. They can't die like humans, they are immortal. When we die, we either go to be with God in the third heaven, or we go to hell.

Do we take our animals with us?

I'm not necessarily the uniqueness of human life, just that the soul as a word isn't particular special as laid out in Hebrew or Greek.

The thief on the cross just asked God to remember him when he came into his kingdom. He didn't have time to be baptized. This is similar to those who are on their death beds, and pray the prayer of salvation just before they die. If it is true in the thiefs case, if he didn't need to be baptized, then it is true in all cases. Making baptism a neccessity for salvation is like saying you have to take communion to remain Christian, it's not true.

The thief wasn't a disciple. Jesus made a personal promise to him in regards to the thief's belief in him. He never had a chance to follow Jesus. He gave him a shot, just like he gives a bunch of the unrighteous. There's a bunch of people that can be saved (In fact, most could fit in the category) without baptism. As leaders in the Christian ministry, it doesn't change that Christians make a public declaration of their faith. It's a requirement. There's very few secret Christians out there and I'm trying to remember some in the Bible and am having a hard time of it.

 

[JGS]

Man, this page just reinforces why I stopped debating religion on the internet. Everybody talks on top of one another in an attempt of 'winning or as others put it 'schooling each other'.

No offense, but you indicated that the Gospels were not meant for ones that don't share your beliefs. Why?

You indicated that another religion claiming to be Christian weren't really so. Why?

What exactly do you expect when you make what appears to be inflammatory comments and then appear offended when someone challenges you on it?

I have repeatedly tried to move on from the trinity and it keeps popping up. I have no problems moving on from an useless debate topic and returning to basic civil discussion. However, I in no way intend to be insulted or disrespected without responding to incorrect information. I do the same thing when the non-religious challenge religions regardless of belief so I will definitely do it when Christians attempt superiority over me without explanation.

It's an admitted weakness & I'm sorry to be adding to the controversy and normally I would slink out until things die down. This time, it kind of needs to be a mutual agreement just so we can agree to disagree that we can believe different things without being called something other than Christian. It's one of the terms accepted when the thread started so I'm not sure why there was a need to change it.

 

[Sabotage]

If the trinity is true then I don't understand how ones could say that the trinity has always been around when one part of it had a beginning

I don't understand either since no part of it had a beginning.

You should understand.

I do think you read, just reacted. No one is saying that part of the trinity had a beginning, except you. That's why "I don't understand" because I said "no part of it had a beginning"

I already answered. God created all things through Jesus.

You didn't answer, you avoided it.

Isaiah 44:24 says God created all things, heavens alone, earth by himself.

If God created all things through Jesus, how exactly is God BY HIMSELF and ALONE?

You keep asking me to explain Isaiah 44, tyet you feel no responsibility to explain

Proverbs 8:30 -
Colossians 1:15-17 -
Genesis 1:26 -

Proverbs 8 is talking about Wisdom. Verse 1 Does not wisdom call out?, v12 I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion. v30 The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works

Who's the "I" and "me"... it's wisdom. Solomon is personifying wisdom.

Colossians 1:15-17, I see Christ creating all things, but in Isaiah 44 God created all things, alone, by himself. It doesn't add up unless Christ is God. Christ is God.
Genesis 1:26, I see God in plurality "us" and "our" which is more evidence for the trinity.


What are you, jehovah witness, mormon?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

No offense, but you indicated that the Gospels were not meant for ones that don't share your beliefs. Why?

You indicated that another religion claiming to be Christian weren't really so. Why?

What exactly do you expect when you make what appears to be inflammatory comments and then appear offended when someone challenges you on it?

Hold on one minute. Where have I once stated what I believe? Where have I stated what my religion was? I haven't. I haven't stated that believing Jesus isn't God disqualified one from being Christian so please don't even put that label on me.

I have repeatedly tried to move on from the trinity and it keeps popping up. I have no problems moving on from an useless debate topic and returning to basic civil discussion. However, I in no way intend to be insulted or disrespected without responding to incorrect information. I do the same thing when the non-religious challenge religions regardless of belief so I will definitely do it when Christians attempt superiority over me without explanation.

This is the first day since the very beginning of this thread that I have even taken part so don't label me in with the others you have been conversing with, ok? If you want to respond to me then respond to me alone. I have not ONCE insulted you. I have NOT ONCE stated that you are any less Christian for believing Jesus isn't God than those who believe he is. I have said that each side has their evidence and scriptural support that they go to but at the end of the day neither side has any all conclusive evidence. At the end of the day each individual has to decide what verses are more applicable for them.

It's an admitted weakness & I'm sorry to be adding to the controversy and normally I would slink out until things die down. This time, it kind of needs to be a mutual agreement just so we can agree to disagree that we can believe different things without being called something other than Christian. It's one of the terms accepted when the thread started so I'm not sure why there was a need to change it.

You continually use this straw man with me and I am tired of it. If you want to respond to others who have been using the 'you're not as much Christian as I am' line then do so with THEM and leave me out of said discussion. It's not my place to judge who is and isn't a Christian. I'd hope that you'd do the same.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Hypothetical questions are hypothetical.



Aren't Catholics organized?

You completely avoided my question, nothing about it is hypothetical. You claim that their teachings are wrong yet everything they teach comes directly from the bible. I then asked you to verify from your personal bible (if you have one) whether they have in any way manipulated whats in the bible. You have not giving me any clear evidence all you have done is provide me with the quotes that were in the site.

EDIT: The day Catholics stop killing each other that will be the day i consider them true christian's, the simple fact that JW's don't participate in wars, and politics is enough for me to crown them true christian's.

 

[SRG01]

Paul's role was not that of a baptizer, but that did not mean that the ones he was speaking to weren't baptized. His role was as a missionary. Others baptized. He was basically lessening his fame since he was being ridiculed for it. From the looks of things, it appears that:

- ALL Christians are supposed to be baptized. It's a requirement (Matthew 28:19,20). Possible exceptions to this are:
1. Babies (Not necessarily minors from our viewpoint) since they can't choose & who tend to be rewarded based on their parent's choices.
2. Non-Christians in line for salvation. This would of course include faithful Jews or ones who lived before the Mosaic Law like Abraham. However, did any of those mentioned indicate that they would be in heaven like Christians seem to be so keenly aware of? Not sure and no time to research.
3. The unrighteous. Possibly ones who lived and died without knowing God or lacking the ability to learn about him. Again, not sure what their reward would be though.

Can I have a source for this, please?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You completely avoided my question, nothing about it is hypothetical. You claim that their teachings are wrong yet everything they teach comes directly from the bible. I then asked you to verify from your personal bible (if you have one) whether they have in any way manipulated whats in the bible. You have not giving me any clear evidence all you have done is provide me with the quotes that were in the site.

EDIT: The day Catholics stop killing each other that will be the day i consider them true christian's, the simple fact that JW's don't participate in wars, and politics is enough for me to crown them true christian's.

Do all Catholics vote? Do all Catholics take part in war? If that is your litmus test for who is and isn't Christian then...

 

[SRG01]

Do all Catholics vote? Do all Catholics take part in war? If that is your litmus test for who is and isn't Christian then...

I like what CS Lewis said about this topic: Trying to say who and who is not Christian (or in this case, Catholic) is perhaps the worst way to handle this subject. The better question is to ask who is a good Christian and who is not.

It's very similar to the "True Scotsman" concept, in that it ultimately becomes a very weak defense as identification is something you can't deny.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I like what CS Lewis said about this topic: Trying to say who and who is not Christian (or in this case, Catholic) is perhaps the worst way to handle this subject. The better question is to ask who is a good Christian and who is not.

It's very similar to the "True Scotsman" concept, in that it ultimately becomes a very weak defense as identification is something you can't deny.

I like that and agree.

 

[JGS]

I do think you read, just reacted. No one is saying that part of the trinity had a beginning, except you. That's why "I don't understand" because I said "no part of it had a beginning"

I honestly can't remeber this argument and can't remeber if you were the first one to say firstborn didn't really mean firstborn. If you are then that's where the dispute is. Again, it hasn't been explained. If this isn't the one who tried to say firstborn or first of creation doesn't mean what it says, then I apologize.

You didn't answer, you avoided it.

Isaiah 44:24 says God created all things, heavens alone, earth by himself.

If God created all things through Jesus, how exactly is God BY HIMSELF and ALONE?

I explained this repeatedly and you refused to even acknowlege the reasons.

Isaiah 44 is clearly talking about idolotry. Isaiah 44:24 is discussing how God needed no help from foreign gods that other worship. I've already explained how he is the Creator even if he has a Master Worker at his side assisting in creation (Or other acts attributed to God even if handled by others)

That doesn't contradict anything. God was responsible for all creation even if he used his son as a master worker. I think of it as the difference between the construction company and the foreman given responsibility for the construction.

Proverbs 8 describes the relationship particularly this bit:
Colossians 1 spells it out even clearer:

Well, the analogy isn't really meant to be literal, just a way for me to grasp how there can be a creator, an inventor, and one who does the work. It's not to say that God can't do it or didn't do it, but he is the designer.

But let's say there is no fitting analogy at all inlcuding my incorrect one.

Are you saying that the verses I quoted are wrong, misinterpretted, or are trumped by Isaiah? I think the go in harmony with each other, but if it's different, it would be nice to know your take on it.

If that's not good enough for you, then maybe it's time to ask the question better. 3 respnses to a basic question that you attempt to warp to your wishes is sufficient.

Proverbs 8 is talking about Wisdom. Verse 1 Does not wisdom call out?, v12 I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion. v30 The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works

Who's the "I" and "me"... it's wisdom. Solomon is personifying wisdom.

Wisdom was created and delighted to be beside God? Wisdom was the first of his works? Was God an idiot before he created it? It would make more sense for God &/or Jesus to be the represent wisdom at which point you could have linked them together some kind of way. However, that doesn't work either since it's talking about something being created by God and used in creation which would mean Jesus obviously still fits the bill.

Colossians 1:15-17, I see Christ creating all things, but in Isaiah 44 God created all things, alone, by himself. It doesn't add up unless Christ is God. Christ is God.
Genesis 1:26, I see God in plurality "us" and "our" which is more evidence for the trinity.

You keep saying this but you are making a connection that simply isn't there. There is NO connection between trinity and Jesus & God between the verses you mentioned. This is regurgitating the debate with no logical conclusion to it.

You: Isaiah said God did it. Colossians said Jesus did it. Boom. Trinity.
You: Genesis says "us" & "we". Boom. Trinity.
You: I'm out (Drops the mike)

What are you, jehovah witness, mormon?

Neither. I'm a Bible reader rather than a verse picker.

If I were one of Jehovah's Witnesses I would have no reason to hide that from people whose beliefs I don't hold. It's not the Inquisition...I hope.

 

[SRG01]

I like that and agree.

To parallel this discussion, I want to share an experience from my days as a Buddhist. There are many people out there who profess to be Buddhists, but in actuality do not follow many of the precepts well. It is preposterous to say that they aren't Buddhists, because they clearly believe in some part of it. It is more constructive to say that there is some sort of standard that Buddhists should aspire or adhere to, and it is to this measure by which they are judged to be good or not.

Please excuse me for any grammatical mistakes. I'm kind of tired.

 

[ServBotPhil]

You completely avoided my question, nothing about it is hypothetical. You claim that their teachings are wrong yet everything they teach comes directly from the bible. I then asked you to verify from your personal bible (if you have one) whether they have in any way manipulated whats in the bible. You have not giving me any clear evidence all you have done is provide me with the quotes that were in the site.

EDIT: The day Catholics stop killing each other that will be the day i consider them true christian's, the simple fact that JW's don't participate in wars, and politics is enough for me to crown them true christian's.

I answered your question. Their teaching don't come from the Bible, because of the reasons stated earlier. Like I said, if you read their watchtower bullshit it would be clear to you. Just look at it for five minutes. "Everything they teach comes from the Bible" - This is what Westboro Baptist says too.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

To parallel this discussion, I want to share an experience from my days as a Buddhist. There are many people out there who profess to be Buddhists, but in actuality do not follow many of the precepts well. It is preposterous to say that they aren't Buddhists, because they clearly believe in some part of it. It is more constructive to say that there is some sort of standard that Buddhists should aspire or adhere to, and it is to this measure by which they are judged to be good or not.

Please excuse me for any grammatical mistakes. I'm kind of tired.

I have to agree again. I was raised Jewish, studied with the JW's for a year at 19 and then became a very conservative and legalistic Christian for a number of years afterwards. Constantly judging others, trying to pick debates, pushing your views on others really grows tiring. Also consistently having a discussion to 'win' or to 'prove' a point also gets tiring. It's much more valuable and imo pleasant to discuss ones belief to LEARN from them.

 

[JGS]

Can I have a source for this, please?

Baptism requirement was mentioned but for good measure
Matthew 28:19,20
All of Acts is a verification of the importance of baptism. I like Paul's the best because it had the weirdest circumstances.

1. Generally, if judgement was placed on a nation or wicked people, their entire family dies with them including the children. Also in 1 Cor. 7, Paul implies that a kid who is with an unbeliever without a believer in sight is "unclean", but are made holy by just one believing parent. So one Christian parent can save their kid(s). On the other hand, if you have two non-Christian parents, they all go the way of the dodo at least until the child is smart enouhg to make his own decisions.
2. The whole of the OT revolves around a bunch of non-Christian followers of God. Hebrews 11 & 12 mentions a cloud of witnesses who's faith verifies the Messiah even though they are something lesser than Christian but will have the opportunity to become so.
3. Acts 17:30 & Acts 24:15 relate a resurrection of righteous and unrighteous as well as God acknowledging times of ignorance.

JGS, I see that you haven't responded to my post. Is there any particular reason? You accused me of things that I didn't do. The least you could have done is apologize.

Didn't see it.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

JGS, I see that you haven't responded to my post. Is there any particular reason? You accused me of things that I didn't do. The least you could have done is apologize.

 

[SRG01]

JGS: I have not read Acts yet, so I will try to reply (if I remember) once I get the chance to read it.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

I have to agree again. I was raised Jewish, studied with the JW's for a year at 19 and then became a very conservative and legalistic Christian for a number of years afterwards. Constantly judging others, trying to pick debates, pushing your views on others really grows tiring. Also consistently having a discussion to 'win' or to 'prove' a point also gets tiring. It's much more valuable and imo pleasant to discuss ones belief to LEARN from them.

I truly believe from the bottom of my heart there are few types of people in civil society who are lower than this. so pompous with a pretension of magnanimity, it's a really big turn off from the religion.

I was damn near converted simply speaking to a Christian who was kind, understanding, everything. At the same time right outside of the coffeeshop where we spoke there were those Christians who were literally yelling at people telling them how pathetic and worthless we all are. literally thumping their bibles with their hands, using it as a weapon to degrade and dehumanize us.

It's honestly inconcievable to me that there is such a thing as an intolerant christian (or any other honest practitioner of religion), and i feel so sorry for them. I feel sorry for The Christ to be used in such a disparaging and hateful way.

 

[JGS]

Hold on one minute. Where have I once stated what I believe? Where have I stated what my religion was? I haven't. I haven't stated that believing Jesus isn't God disqualified one from being Christian so please don't even put that label on me.

I don't think I mentioned what your religion was. I got the impression that the religion you didn't like wasn't correct nor were my views since they didn't match with the trinity doctrine adopted by early church leaders that were not apostles like here:

If you have access to the writings of the Church Fathers (they're free on the web) read the words of these individuals. You will see that every one of them accepted the full divinity of Jesus and yet the WTS states otherwise. Its unfortunate that they feel the need to misrepresent men who died almost 2000 years ago.

This is the first day since the very beginning of this thread that I have even taken part so don't label me in with the others you have been conversing with, ok? If you want to respond to me then respond to me alone. I have not ONCE insulted you. I have NOT ONCE stated that you are any less Christian for believing Jesus isn't God than those who believe he is. I have said that each side has their evidence and scriptural support that they go to but at the end of the day neither side has any all conclusive evidence. At the end of the day each individual has to decide what verses are more applicable for them.

I wasn't. I was avoiding making a double post, but you were implying that I was the problem which I wasn't, not even when replying to you. I assumed you were wanting to discuss matters. That was my mistake.

However, you made a few implications regarding my beliefs that do indeed make me less than Christian. I don't follow the Gospels according to who they are meant for & I apparently mirror a religion that doesn't either. Maybe you could explain further but only if you like. Right now I'll reserve an apology on the misunderstanding.

However, I was certainly disagreeing with your assertion that there were an equal number of proofs on both sides. The trinity side doesn't come near the amount of supports. If you're neutral about the matter, you misunderstood if you thought I was too. I think the trinity doctrine is flawed and doesn't come close to proving the notion that God and his Son are seperate entities until you leave the NT.

You continually use this straw man with me and I am tired of it. If you want to respond to others who have been using the 'you're not as much Christian as I am' line then do so with THEM and leave me out of said discussion. It's not my place to judge who is and isn't a Christian. I'd hope that you'd do the same.

Didn't mean for my expression of views to be a strawman. I have not once lowered myself to the notion that anyone here isn't Christian so not sure why it's being brought up in your response. I don't believe the trinity. That's all this boils down to.

JGS: I have not read Acts yet, so I will try to reply (if I remember) once I get the chance to read it.

That's fine. Acts is one of the hidden gems though.

I like it for when people dismiss Paul. He's all over the place in here and one of the Gospel writers wrote it. It's a nice merging for those that think Paul taught a different brand of Christianity.

I also like it because of the growing pains experienced by the Christians. But again, baptism was the norm.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't think I mentioned what your religion was. I got the impression that the religion you didn't like wasn't correct nor were my views since they didn't match with the trinity doctrine adopted by early church leaders that were not apostles like here:

I wasn't. I was avoiding making a double post, but you were implying that I was the problem which I wasn't, not even when replying to you. I assumed you were wanting to discuss matters. That was my mistake.

However, you made a few implications regarding my beliefs that do indeed make me less than Christian. I don't follow the Gospels according to who they are meant for & I apparently mirror a religion that doesn't either. Maybe you could explain further but only if you like. Right now I'll reserve an apology on the misunderstanding.

However, I was certainly disagreeing with your assertion that there were an equal number of proofs on both sides. The trinity side doesn't come near the amount of supports. If you're neutral about the matter, you misunderstood if you thought I was too. I think the trinity doctrine is flawed and doesn't come close to proving the notion that God and his Son are seperate entities until you leave the NT.
Didn't mean for my expression of views to be a strawman. I have not once lowered myself to the notion that anyone here isn't Christian so not sure why it's being brought up in your response. I don't believe the trinity. That's all this boils down to.

My stating that the early church fathers believed in the divinity of Jesus doesn't mean that the teaching is true. It simply means that the early church fathers believed he was divine which was contrary to what the WTS stated they believed. That was my reasoning for bringing up the ECF.

I never intended to convey that you were the problem. I argued that each side has certain verses that they prefer that support their belief and verses that the other side uses are seen as less significant. Those who believe in Jesus accept John 1:1, John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-18 and a few others as being preeminent. Those who deny he is God will use verses where Jesus emphasizes that he Father is greater than he, no one knows the hour of his return, etc to show he isn't God.

I never said that there are more verses to support the trinity, I said that the number of verses shouldn't be the deciding factor. That is why I brought up the 144,000 which is mentioned two, maybe three times. Homosexuality being sinful which is mentioned two, maybe three times. Jesus being Michael which is never mentioned, etc. A doctrine being true or false shouldn't be decided by how often its mentioned in the Bible.

I stated that words written in 35CE conveyed a different meaning than they do today. This is true. It's always been true. The meaning of a word is different in different eras and locations. Surely you don't have a problem with that concept right? Look at such concepts as honor and shame which were prevalent in the ancient Middle East, shoot its still relevant today. Look at the idea of patronage in that time. Look at how women were viewed back then to how they are viewed today.

The books of the Bible were written to a particular people in a particular part of the world during a particular time. Does that mean that we today cannot benefit from it and/or appreciate what was said? Of course not. It simply requires us to have an appreciation for the context. For instance, 9/11. Those who read about that day and event 500 years from now will feel differently than we who experienced it felt. They may not fully appreciate the events that led up to it. The reaction of our country and politicians. That is why they'd have to understand our foreign policy from 1940-2000. They'd need to understand the development and evolution of militant Islam. They'd have to gain an appreciation for the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. Context is key. It's key when you read ANYTHING, let a lone the bible.

I haven't questioned whether you are or aren't a Christian because it isn't my place to judge. Me calling into question your understanding and appreciation for context isn't calling into question whether or not you're Christian. If someone claims to be a chef but doesn't have a great grasp on the ins and outs of cooking, to have someone point that out isn't dismissing the person being a chef, its just pointing out some valuable information that they may be missing.

 

[ServBotPhil]

Publishing your own translation of the Bible and calling it Spirit formed is complete bullshit. JWs can "prove" whatever they believe b/c they published their own translation of the Holy Scriptures. This should be a red flag for anyone seeking to learn from JWs.

 

[JGS]

My stating that the early church fathers believed in the divinity of Jesus doesn't mean that the teaching is true. It simply means that the early church fathers believed he was divine which was contrary to what the WTS stated they believed. That was my reasoning for bringing up the ECF.

That part may be true (Although I've checked a couple so far and one is not a trinitarian and the other is very debateable. I'll keep looking), however Witnesses make it clear that they follow the Bible only. Their literature is Bible based. They don't acknowledge early church leaders as inspired representatives of Jehovah. There's no reason for them to considering that there is an falling away from Biblical teaching the further away from the 1st cebtury you get and down to our day. They may cite them when they support Bible teaching, but understandably dismiss them when they don't.

I never intended to convey that you were the problem. I argued that each side has certain verses that they prefer that support their belief and verses that the other side uses are seen as less significant. Those who believe in Jesus accept John 1:1, John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-18 and a few others as being preeminent. Those who deny he is God will use verses where Jesus emphasizes that he Father is greater than he, no one knows the hour of his return, etc to show he isn't God.

Just to be clear on this, I'm not looking for a fight from anyone and wasn't meaning to imply it. I'm merely defending my beliefs and I'm clearly in the minority.

My point is why defend only John 1:1? I believe John 1:1; 8:58; & Collosians 1: 15-18. Stick to the trinity teaching while defendinf all of John or all of Collosians. Defend the whole Bible since it's inspired. Why would one verse hold more weight than all others inlcuding ones involving commandments to Christians? Defend the Bible, don't defend just the verse.

I never said that there are more verses to support the trinity, I said that the number of verses shouldn't be the deciding factor.

The number of verses is extremely improtant. When every verse explicitly implies or can be explained to mean the seperation of God, jesus, & the Holy Spirit that helps assure that the trinity as a bible teaching doesn't exist. Every major doctrinal point is explained in pretty good detail- Jesus is God's son, the wages sin pays is death, don't commit idolatry, etc... We there is overwhelming evidence, it helps to easily explain what appears on the surface as inconsistencies. John 1:1, for example, is not an inconcsistency once you don't assume the English translation as fact for example.

That is why I brought up the 144,000 which is mentioned two, maybe three times. Homosexuality being sinful which is mentioned two, maybe three times. Jesus being Michael which is never mentioned, etc. A doctrine being true or false shouldn't be decided by how often its mentioned in the Bible.

These aren't on the same level of importance as who you worship. If you don't know who you're worshipping, you might as well be worshipping Baal. There are plenty of references to what thse 144,000 will be doing (Ruling with Jesus) and no one but Jesus is auditing the number so it's unnecessary to have detail beyond a scholarly purpose. Homosexuality being mentioned twice is enough because it's folded into fornication which is mentioned often. They're both sinful. If fornication was mentioned once in vagueries and verse twistings out of context, I would be saying fornicate freely.

I stated that words written in 35CE conveyed a different meaning than they do today. This is true. It's always been true. The meaning of a word is different in different eras and locations. Surely you don't have a problem with that concept right? Look at such concepts as honor and shame which were prevalent in the ancient Middle East, shoot its still relevant today. Look at the idea of patronage in that time. Look at how women were viewed back then to how they are viewed today.

No one is disputing this. However, translations don't have much to do with culture. The words used were meant for their time period. We know this because there were words for the things people are twisting firstborn to mean. It's far more likely that we have warped the original meaning of the word to fit into ur current view. I have no doubts this is what occurred with the trinity.

I haven't questioned whether you are or aren't a Christian because it isn't my place to judge. Me calling into question your understanding and appreciation for context isn't calling into question whether or not you're Christian. If someone claims to be a chef but doesn't have a great grasp on the ins and outs of cooking, to have someone point that out isn't dismissing the person being a chef, its just pointing out some valuable information that they may be missing.

The thing is that based on the reasonings on the board, I do have a grasp . It doesn't make me feel better for you to say that I just don't get it. I do get it. I can't use your analogy without sounding arrogant. However, why would a butcher concern himself with what a vegetarian thinks about his steaks? There has been information for sure. my eyes have been opened to what trinitarians believe. However, there's no connection to the things that inte

Publishing your own translation of the Bible and calling it Spirit formed is complete bullshit. JWs can "prove" whatever they believe b/c they published their own translation of the Holy Scriptures. This should be a red flag for anyone seeking to learn from JWs.

Jehovah's Witnesses were using the King James Bible and other translations just fine.

You do realize King James is an interprtation published book (Along with every English based Bible) too so hopefully you hold the same animosity for those whacky Englishmen & their Shakespeare cult.rest me - namely Scriptural support.

 

[Fedos]

Again, how do you arrive at that based on the scripture you mentioned if the angels were there before the Holy Spirit was moving to and fro before the waters?

Because the angels were created by the Holy Spirit. Heaven existed before anything in the universe. Otherwise how could the angels of God shout for joy when God was creating the universe?

Do we take our animals with us?

I'm not necessarily the uniqueness of human life, just that the soul as a word isn't particular special as laid out in Hebrew or Greek.

Well I'm not schooled in Hebrew or Greek. But the soul is basically the mind, will, and emotions.

The thief wasn't a disciple. Jesus made a personal promise to him in regards to the thief's belief in him. He never had a chance to follow Jesus. He gave him a shot, just like he gives a bunch of the unrighteous. There's a bunch of people that can be saved (In fact, most could fit in the category) without baptism. As leaders in the Christian ministry, it doesn't change that Christians make a public declaration of their faith. It's a requirement. There's very few secret Christians out there and I'm trying to remember some in the Bible and am having a hard time of it.

What does water baptism have to do with being a 'secret' or closet 'Christian?' There is not only water baptism but 'fire' baptism: '"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' Matthew 3: 11.

Also, what is your opinion on this verse: 'And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.' 1 Timothy: 3: 16

 

[JGS]

Because the angels were created by the Holy Spirit. Heaven existed before anything in the universe. Otherwise how could the angels of God shout for joy when God was creating the universe?

So Holy Spirit was around before the angels were created and the earth so it's a part of the trinity as brought out in Genesis.

I know angels were around before the earth, I just wasn't sure you believed that based on the argument. In any event, I still don't see this as definitive proof a trinity considering Moses never once brngs it up again.

Well I'm not schooled in Hebrew or Greek. But the soul is basically the mind, will, and emotions.

Nor am I but nephesh psyche are very common words and is used to describe a variety of things. By the time English translations get to it. This site was the first one to pulll up on Google. I know nothing about this site and it could be run by a crazy man, but in the technical aspect regarding the use of the word in OT, it's correct. http://ecclesia.org/truth/nephesh.html

The word nephesh occurs 754 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.

In the A.V. and R.V. it is translated "soul" 472 times, while in the other 282 places it is represented by forty-four different words or phrases. In fifty-three of these places there is a marginal rendering which calls attention to the fact that the word is "nephesh", while in 229 passages the English reader has hitherto been left in ignorance of the fact. The English word "soul" is in every occurrence the rendering of the Hebrew nephesh, except in Job 30:15 and Isa. 57:16.

Though, with these two exceptions, the English word "soul" always represents the Hebrew nephesh, nephesh is not always translated "soul".

Basically, just because you associate soul with humans doesn't necessarily mean that is the only association. Most instances, the soul is pretty generic. Not in all, but that's another discussion.

What does water baptism have to do with being a 'secret' or closet 'Christian?' There is not only water baptism but 'fire' baptism: '"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' Matthew 3: 11.

Baptism is the public display of our dedication as Christians which is required if we declare ourselves Christian. Otherwise, anyone could be a Christian wth qualifying. Christianity is a religion of qualifications and standards. Baptism shows that you went through all the steps to become one including dedication.

Also, what is your opinion on this verse: 'And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.' 1 Timothy: 3: 16

This verse explains the mystery and answers itself which is why it's not controversial. It is regarding Jesus and the fact that most of the planet at the time (& now) fail to see the significance of his sacrifice. So even though the Bible is an open book available to all, most people take a pass on what the solution to mankind's problems are. They view this as a mystery.

 

[Fedos]

So Holy Spirit was around before the angels were created and the earth so it's a part of the trinity as brought out in Genesis.

I know angels were around before the earth, I just wasn't sure you believed that based on the argument. In any event, I still don't see this as definitive proof a trinity considering Moses never once brngs it up again.

That passage in the beginning of Genesis is not the only place Moses mentions God's Spirit.

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." Genesis 6: 3. This passage is basically discussing the convicting role of God's Spirit, which (if you know your New Testament) Jesus mentions:

'7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:' St John. 16: 7-8

Nor am I but nephesh psyche are very common words and is used to describe a variety of things. By the time English translations get to it. This site was the first one to pulll up on Google. I know nothing about this site and it could be run by a crazy man, but in the technical aspect regarding the use of the word in OT, it's correct. http://ecclesia.org/truth/nephesh.html Basically, just because you associate soul with humans doesn't necessarily mean that is the only association. Most instances, the soul is pretty generic. Not in all, but that's another discussion.

Ok. But even Jesus said in the Gospels what would a man give in exchange for his soul? Obviously then, we as human beings stand to gain and lose something based on our repsonses to the Gospel message.

Baptism is the public display of our dedication as Christians which is required if we declare ourselves Christian. Otherwise, anyone could be a Christian wth qualifying. Christianity is a religion of qualifications and standards. Baptism shows that you went through all the steps to become one including dedication.

Baptism is an outward expression of faith, but it is not required to remain Christian. Just because you weren't baptized that doesn't mean you weren't or aren't Christian. The book of 1st John is generally seen as a book whereby you as a professing Christian can gauge 'tests of assurance.' You can become Christian (pray the sinner's prayer and whatnot) and remain Christian for years and get baptized later and it wouldn't have any effect on your salvation.

This verse explains the mystery and answers itself which is why it's not controversial. It is regarding Jesus and the fact that most of the planet at the time (& now) fail to see the significance of his sacrifice. So even though the Bible is an open book available to all, most people take a pass on what the solution to mankind's problems are. They view this as a mystery.

The mystery is that God the Son was manifest in the flesh, that he lived among men, was justified, seen of angels, believed on by humans, and recieved up to glory (heaven). The text says so itself. It is called the mystery of godliness.

 

[JGS]

That passage in the beginning of Genesis is not the only place Moses mentions God's Spirit.

I know. It's the only one you used to link it to the trinity. I'm only working with the material given and the other verses don't link with a trinity either.

Ok. But even Jesus said in the Gospels what would a man give in exchange for his soul? Obviously then, we as human beings stand to gain and lose something based on our repsonses to the Gospel message.

I'm not disputing this at all.

Baptism is an outward expression of faith, but it is not required to remain Christian. Just because you weren't baptized that doesn't mean you weren't or aren't Christian. The book of 1st John is generally seen as a book whereby you as a professing Christian can gauge 'tests of assurance.' You can become Christiian (pray the sinner's prayer and whatnot) and remain Christian for years and get baptized later and it wouldn't have any effect on your salvation.

This isn't correct. You are generally not Christian if you don't get baptized although it's possible there are exceptions. Again I couldn't find them Biblically. The general rule from scripture requires it. It's just that salvation is not necessarily dependent on you being a Christian.

I certainly agree that you can follow the steps toward baptism:
1. Knowledge
2. Repentance
3. Turning away from the sin once repentant
4. Dedication

In fact, you have to do all of that before you qualify. However, that doesn't change the last step needing to be done too. The difference might lie in the question:

"If you do everything that Christians are supposed to do, then what the heck is stopping you from getting baptized?" If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, & quacks lke a duck, why not let it be known you're a duck? If something is physically inhibiting you from the act, it's a different story, but those kinds of hindrances are few and far between and baptism is easy for ones who claim to be Christain.

The mystery is that God the Son was manifest in the flesh, that he lived among men, was justified, seen of angels, believed on by humans, and recieved up to glory (heaven). The text says so itself. It is called the mystery of godliness.

With the exception of the God is Son part which is entirely a translation issue, I'm not seeing the dispute.

 

[ServBotPhil]

Baptism is an outward expression of faith, but it is not required to remain Christian. Just because you weren't baptized that doesn't mean you weren't or aren't Christian. The book of 1st John is generally seen as a book whereby you as a professing Christian can gauge 'tests of assurance.' You can become Christian (pray the sinner's prayer and whatnot) and remain Christian for years and get baptized later and it wouldn't have any effect on your salvation.

True.

 

[JGS]

True.

If you guys say so. As long as there's consensus, who cares what Jesus says about the matter?

 

[ServBotPhil]

If you guys say so. As long as there's consensus, who cares what Jesus says about the matter?

Jesus never said baptism is the way, he said He is the way. It's not the Great Commandment. We are saved by grace through faith, no?

Edit: We are supposed to do a number of things that Jesus commanded, but we fail. I'm not saying to ignore the commandment, rather (like the man on the cross next to Jesus) no one is perfect.

 

[JGS]

Jesus never said baptism is the way, he said He is the way. It's not the Great Commandment. We are saved by grace through faith, no?

Edit: We are supposed to do a number of things that Jesus commanded, but we fail. I'm not saying to ignore the commandment, rather (like the man on the cross next to Jesus) no one is perfect.

The man next to Jesus was not a disciple though.

Jesus quite plainly defined a disciple as one who is baptized. It's tough to fail at baptism while also remaining a Christian. It's the easiest thing to do. It's much more difficult to turn away from sin for example than it would be to be dunked in water. Again, it boils down to what exactly the issue is regarding not wanting to be baptized.

BTW, I'm much more open to baptism not being a requirement as it's discussed almost as an afterthought, so this won't be nearly as distatseful as the trinity stuff.

 

[ServBotPhil]

I'm jut trying to remove baptism and salvation from ever being in the same sentence. They're simply unrelated. That's all.

 

[JGS]

I'm jut trying to remove baptism and salvation from ever being in the same sentence. They're simply unrelated. That's all.

I didn't say it was required for salvation. I said it was a requirement for being a Christian.