Originally posted by Suzianne
Their content, eh?

All their content does is show the laughability of the JW dogma.

again unworthy of serious comment. If you want people to take your comments seriously you should make some effort to address the actual content.

Originally posted by sonship
This was not written for your benefit Robbie.

1. First of all its not highlighted by John the evangelist, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions there was no capitalisation on the original languages therefore to state that it was highlighted by the evangelist is simply demonstrably FALSE.

Not syntactically highlighted. ...[text shortened]... Plenty of people may have said "I am" or "I am [he]". But plenty of people are not Jesus Christ.

I seriously don't know what to make of this pile of waffle. I have already pointed out that the term at Exodus 3:14 is not the same term used by Jesus, why you continue to insist that it is the same term I have really no idea and must put it down to either willful ignorance and/or religious bias.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see. Even after I highlighted the salient points of my post AT YOUR REQUEST, you not only didn't address them, you didn't even mention them. One can only conclude that you know you are wrong and are too immature to admit it.

[b]As an atheist, why would i make such an argument?

C'mon. "As an atheist", you haven't been reluctant to voice you ...[text shortened]... ove for 1947 days.[/b]

What's your point? Is this some last ditch effort to try to save face?[/b]

The points you highlighted were 'not' salient, which is why i did not address them. (You might as well have highlighted your pet hamster).

I made it clear in my first post that i was neutral on this subject. Posters like Joseph and Sonship have put forward far stronger counter arguments than i could muster on this subject and are far more convincing than what Robbie has regurgitated.

I mentioned the fact that you hadn't made a chess move for 1947 days (5.3 years) as it is by far the most interesting thing about you.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The points you highlighted were 'not' salient, which is why i did not address them. (You might as well have highlighted your pet hamster).

I made it clear in my first post that i was neutral on this subject. Posters like Joseph and Sonship have put forward far stronger counter arguments than i could muster on this subject and are far more convinci ...[text shortened]... ade a chess move for 1947 days (5.3 years) as it is by far the most interesting thing about you.

I somehow smell a fishy pilchard like smell, it must be because

1. You claim that the arguments are more convincing but have not stated why they are more convincing. Are we simply meant to take your word for it? What if you tell us that you fought with the Red Barron? are we also meant to believe you? thus without substantiation your opinion is meaningless.

2. You chastise Robbie for regurgitation of ideas when both sonship and Joseph are simply parroting centuries old dogma which has been shown to be demonstrably false. This undermines your now ludicrous claim of neutrality.

3. Insulting ThinkofOne only serves to highlight the weakness of your stance here. All he asked you to do was provide reason and so far you have been unable to do so.

All in all old boy a rather shoddy piece of work.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
somehow smell a fishy pilchard like smell,..

2. You chastise Robbie for regurgitation of ideas when both sonship and Joseph are simply parroting centuries old dogma which has been shown to be demonstrably false. This undermines your now ludicrous claim of neutrality.

Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person? Are you perhaps coming round to the idea of the Trinity?

The Ghost is Switzerland Sir, and if you can smell fish it is probably time for you to take a shower.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person? Are you perhaps coming round to the idea of the Trinity?

The Ghost is Switzerland Sir, and if you can smell fish it is probably time for you to take a shower.

Yes the arguments in favour of the trinity are so convincing i find myself being assimilated, the Red Barron you say, how intwesting!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The points you highlighted were 'not' salient, which is why i did not address them. (You might as well have highlighted your pet hamster).

I made it clear in my first post that i was neutral on this subject. Posters like Joseph and Sonship have put forward far stronger counter arguments than i could muster on this subject and are far more convinci ...[text shortened]... ade a chess move for 1947 days (5.3 years) as it is by far the most interesting thing about you.

lol. Given every chance to prove otherwise, Ghost of a Duke has repeatedly shown his cluelessness and immaturity. Evidently he can't keep himself from doing so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. - John 8:58 - NIV

What is the context of John 8:58? What are the Jews actually asking Jesus, about his identity? who he is? or about his age?

The preceding verse makes ...[text shortened]... xt itself can be utilised to disprove the claim that Jesus is referring to himself as God incarnate.

robbie, it's my hope that this commentary will shed additional light on the significance of the statement in John 8:58 and would encourage you to read its remaining pages. If you wish, I'll be glad to present them here in three installments. Regards, Bob

The Preexistence of Jesus Christ

"John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’”

"This statement by our Lord to the Jews clearly affirms His preincarnate state or preexistence as the eternal Son of God. It will be noted that Christ’s existence prior to becoming a human being is nowhere in Scripture argued as a doctrine, but is everywhere assumed and used as the basis of the doctrines of the incarnation, hypostatic union and atonement for sin.

Our Lord’s birth in Bethlehem 2000 years ago was not His origin, only His incarnation. There could be no incarnation and hypostatic union without our Lord having a previous existence. To deny the preexistence of our Lord renders the incarnation and hypostatic union impossible. To go back further, could there be a Trinity were there no preexistent Son of God? The one necessarily presupposes the other. Christ’s preexistence is not a matter of purely academic interest but in fact it is the foundation on which the whole superstructure of the Christian faith rests. If our Lord is not preexistent, He cannot be God, and if He is not God, He cannot be Creator or Redeemer.

Jesus was unique among men in that His birth did not mark His origin, but only His appearance as a man on the stage of time. Of no other person would it be possible to distinguish between His birth and His origin, or to say that His life did not begin when He was born. He was the meeting place of eternity and time, the uniting of deity and humanity, the junction of heaven and earth. His origin was not related to His birth, or His nature dependent only on human ancestry. His nature was derived from His eternal being.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not become God’s Son at the incarnation or when He rose from the dead. His resurrection in fact demonstrated that He was the eternal Son of God who has no beginning. He is God, supreme and without beginning. Our Lord was conscious of a previous existence. He spoke of the glory He had with the Father before the foundation of the world.

John 17:5, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” He claimed preexistence in explicit and unmistakable terms. John 16:26-28, “In that day you will ask in My name, and..." -Pastor/Teacher Bill Wenstrom (first 2 of 9 pages)

http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/doctrines/christology/preexistence_of_christ.pdf

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The Preexistence of Jesus Christ
"John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’”

"This statement by our Lord to the Jews clearly affirms His preincarnate state or preexistence as the eternal Son of God. [/b]

The term "eternal son" is not found anywhere in the Bible. In fact the office and authority of the son is only temporary:

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power
1 Cor 15:24 KJV

If there are multiple people in the godhead then this means that Isaiah was wrong when he states of the child (in bold below):

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore.

The trinity doctrine splits the godhead and causes confusion as in the apparent contradiction above. If it is the one and same deity manifested in different offices, then there is no contradiction in the handover of power and authority as described above.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes the arguments in favour of the trinity are so convincing i find myself being assimilated, the Red Barron you say, how intwesting!

You are Borg sir. You do the assimilating! (Invariably of the naive and vulnerable).

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

The Lord Jesus Christ did not become God’s Son at the incarnation or when He rose from the dead.

This statement I would like to return to and examine more carefully.
But first I would like to affirm so much that went before it which I found very true and helpful.

Jesus was unique among men in that His birth did not mark His origin, but only His appearance as a man on the stage of time.

Yes. Micah 5:2 indicates that His being born in Bethlehem was His going forth from eternity:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, So little to be among the thousands of Judah,

From you there will come forth to Me He who is to be Ruler in Israel; And His goings forth are from ancient times, From the days of eternity. (Micah 5:2)

His birth was not the origin of the Son of God but His going forth from eternity. Amen.

Of no other person would it be possible to distinguish between His birth and His origin, or to say that His life did not begin when He was born.

Amen again. The writer of Hebrews does not use the phrase "eternal Son" but he does strongly indicate that the Son of God had no beginning of days. Comparing Christ to the mysterious figure Melchisedec, king of Salem -

"Being without father, without mother, without geneology, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God, abides a priest perpetually. (Hebrews 7:3)

Though the Gospels of Matthew and Luke include geneologies of Christ because He was BORN of the virgin Mary, John does not. For a "holistic" view of the Son of God, John shows He is without origin from eternity because He is God.

Perhaps in a separate thread I will talk about how the resurrection of Christ is also spoken of as the birth of the Son of God in another aspect.

The link was -
http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/doctrines/christology/preexistence_of_christ.pdf

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your interpretation cannot be sustained from the context,

1. Jesus never actually claimed that he was equal to God.

2. It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straight ...[text shortened]... also believe that Jesus had a daemon because his enemies said so. I am sorry but its nonsense.

"Your faith is based on what Jesus enemies claimed, not what Jesus himself stated."

Wrong again robbie. My faith is based on the Word of God.

The record, as quoted from John 5:18 says, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God", clearly means that the Jews that "sought" to kill Jesus did so because they understood what Jesus meant when He said, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." That is, that Jesus made Himself "equal" with God!

Jesus knew what He meant and so did the Jews, but you don't. You should, and would, if you will simply allow the text to speak for itself.

You're fond of making the accusation that Christians are biased by tradition, but you have your own traditions as well, which prevent you from seeing the clear and simple meanings of the texts.

Originally posted by divegeester

The term "eternal son" is not found anywhere in the Bible. In fact the office and authority of the son is only temporary:

The Son's going forth are from days of eternity (Micah 5:2).
And Hebrews 7:1 says He has no beginning of days nor end of life.

Furthermore the Son of God, abides a priest PERPETUALLY (Heb. 7:3)

In Hebrews 7:17 it says the Son of God is a priest forever.

For it is testified, "You are a Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedek." (Heb. 7:17)

Concerning Jesus Christ Hebrews also says -

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today; yes, even FOREVER." (Hebrews 13:8)

Comment ?

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power
1 Cor 15:24 KJV

We can talk more on this latter. But when was the Son NOT subject to the Father ? Was He not subject to the Father all through His earthy ministry ?

Of course not. The Corinthian passage there doesn't mean the Son of God ceases in existence, or office, or priesthood, or becomes subject as if He was NOT subject previously.

Originally posted by sonship

The term "eternal son" is not found anywhere in the Bible. In fact the office and authority of the son is only temporary:

The Son's going forth are from days of eternity [b](Micah 5:2)

Not sure what translation you are using but here is the NKJV of Micah 5:2:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

Quite a difference considering what we are discussing and we should be very clear about which of these other scriptures you cite refer to "the son" or his eternal authority, his single entity. Remember that if I'm correct and there is one god/deity/entity manifested in 3 (or more) offices, then ALL of the scripture will point to eternity because HE [note: not "they"] is eternal in one office or the other.

Originally posted by divegeester

The trinity doctrine splits the godhead and causes confusion as in the apparent contradiction above. If it is the one and same deity manifested in different offices, then there is no contradiction in the handover of power and authority as described above.

Our understanding of the Trinity does not "split" the godhead because of the concept of coinherence. Each of the Three lives within the other.

Finally, I may be seeing what your objections are to the very word trinity or the phrase "the Triune God." And no confusion is among Christians in the experience and enjoyment of the Triune God.

When we try too hard to systematically explain in place of experience and enjoy, some confusion may arise. History surely reveals this.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water is no solution.
Deeper experience of the Trinity is our oneness.