Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not happy with Church for reasons but I'm not going to become a JW anytime soon either.
ok, lets consider this
(Hebrews 10:23-25) . . .Let us hold fast the public declaration of our hope without
wavering, for he is faithful that promised. And let us consider one another to incite
to love and fine works, [b]not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as
some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the m ...[text shortened]... are you to
get encouragement. This is a serious question. I am capable of rational thought.[/b]
Manny
3 edits
Originally posted by menace71you dont know what happened to the last guy that said that, but please answer the
I'm not happy with Church for reasons but I'm not going to become a JW anytime soon either.
Manny
question, how will you be encouraged in your faith? regardless of whether you will
become anything.
3 edits
-Removed-sorry this type of sensationalistic journalism is below me, its the sort of thing one reads
on the front cover of a tabloid newspaper, i have said all i have to say on the matter,
basing my reasons on references from the original language texts, you have produced
nothing but a one dimensional emotionalism which quite frankly i find tedious. I am
uninterested in your dogma, i am interested in what the text actually states.
In Titus we find two nouns connected by kai “and”, the first noun being
preceded by the definite article, tou, “of the” and the second noun without the
definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear
distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct
persons are connected by kai, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it
is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples
of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th
1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1.
According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge,
England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ
. . . is possible in Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].”
Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are
mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and
Jesus as being the same individual.
Suck it up mate, once again an examination of the sacred text has undone your
dogma! When will you people learn?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is because they are not the same individual, you nitwit. The Father
sorry this type of sensationalistic journalism is below me, its the sort of thing one reads
on the front cover of a tabloid newspaper, i have said all i have to say on the matter,
basing my reasons on references from the original language texts, you have produced
nothing but a one dimensional emotionalism which quite frankly i find tedious. I ...[text shortened]... ce again an examination of the sacred text has undone your
dogma! When will you people learn?
and the Son are two distinct persons in the Godhead. And there is
another not mentioned here. He is the Holy Spirit. These three persons
have one name in common, and it is "YAH".
Hallelu YAH
Originally posted by RJHindsI know they are not the same person, i even know why they are not the same person,
This is because they are not the same individual, you nitwit. The Father
and the Son are two distinct persons in the Godhead. And there is
another not mentioned here. He is the Holy Spirit. These three persons
have one name in common, and it is "YAH".
Hallelu YAH
I even demonstrated with reference to the original language text. Its not me you
should be preaching to, its divesgeester. Godhead is a not found in scripture, your
pagan doctrines have no place here.
6 edits
Originally posted by galveston75
Did you not read my last post?
Here is more info on what worship includes:
"Hebrew and Greek Terms. Most Hebrew and Greek words that can denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship. However, the context determines in what way the respective words are to be understood.
One of the Hebrew words conveying the idea of worship (̵ recieves but the context shows it was to follow and serve him in whatever was needed by him.
The worship Jesus recieved was not that worship that Jehovah recieves but the context shows it was to follow and serve him in whatever was needed by him.
The very things that Jehovah of the Old Testament claimed for Himself, Jesus of Nazareth also claimed. But the real worship is to LIVE through Him, ABIDE in Him as He has become available to us as "life giving Spirit" .
The Christian's worship certainly is to be inwardly united with Him and to live Him out and allow Him to live through us. Now to the equal claims of Jesus, God incarnate, and the Jehovah of the Old Testament:
Jesus said "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11)
The Old Testament declares "Jehovah is my shepherd" (Psalm 23:1)
Why should I not worship Christ?
Jesus claims to be the Judge of all men and nations (John 5:27; Matt. 35:31)
Joel the prophet quoting Jehovah, wrote "for there I will sit to judge all the nations round about" (Joel 3:12)
Why should we not worship Christ then ? Have you not read the decree of God?
"Now therefore, O kings, be prudent. Take admonition, O judges of the earth. Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son Lest He be angry and you perish from the way; For His anger may suddenly be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in Him. (Psa. 2:10-12)
Kiss the Son of God and take refuge in Him, it says. Why should I not worship the Son ?
Jesus said "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).
And Isaiah says "Jehovah will be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory" (Isa. 60:19)
So we worship Jesus Christ.
Jesus claimed in prayer before the Father to share His eternal glory:
"And now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)
But the prophet Isaiah quoted Jehovah vowing - "I am Jehovah, that is My name, And I will not give My glory to another ..." (Isa. 42:8)
If Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to worship the Son, that is their devil inspired rebellion. Don't listen to their twisting Scripture to rationalize their opposition to the Son of God.
Jesus spoke of Himself as "the Bidegroom" (Matt. 25:1).
This is exactly how Jehovah revealed Himself in the Old Testament - (Isa. 62:5; Hos. 2:16)
Then why should I not worship the Lord Jesus ?
Jesus, in resurrection declares that He is the First and the Last (Rev. 1:17)
These are exactly the words used by Jehovah to declare there is no other God besides Himself (Isa. 42:8).
The Old Testament declares that "Jehovah is our light" (Psa. 27:1)
He became incarnate in the NT to say "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12)
Jesus said "Before Abraham came into being I AM" (John 8:58) and again that He is the "I AM" (John 10:31-33). The Jews clearly got the point. He was saying that He was the same "I AM" of Exodus 3:14.
He repeated the claim to be the "I AM" (Mark 14:62 and John 18:5,6)
Many people can say "I am". Only Jesus Christ said it and the people drew back and fell dramatically to the ground at the power of His words.
Sure, the believer worships Christ the Son. And to live through Him is the ultimate worship. We are told "If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you." (1 Pet. 4:14)
The Jehovah's Witnesses reproach believers because of their worship of Jesus Christ, but God turns it into a blessing.
We are after all told " ... sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts ..." (1 Pet. 3:25)
It is proposterous that galvaston would insist that such devotion to Jesus, is not worship. And more untrue that it is not worship to God Himself.
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI agree with you that our great God and Savior is Jesus Christ according to the passage in Titus.
This is because they are not the same individual, you nitwit. The Father
and the Son are two distinct persons in the Godhead. And there is
another not mentioned here. He is the Holy Spirit. These three persons
have one name in common, and it is "YAH".
Hallelu YAH
The JW quotes some source saying:
A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear
distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct
persons are connected by kai, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it
I do not claim that there is no distinction between the Son and the Father.
I do not claim that there is no distinction between God and Jesus.
I claim that there is no separation.
"God and Jesus Christ our Savior" (1 Pet. 1:2) does not negate "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" . What it demonstrates is the God has gone through a kind of process which He has passed through to impart Himself to man.
It is not simply that God has come to be our outward object of worship. He has come to be the indwelling Savior and divine life. What He is in His trinity cannot be separated from His eternal purpose to impart Himself into His people.
So the Father and the Son are distinct but they are not separate. I think these words would be wasted on Robbie. Perhaps you can agree with this.
His source says
is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples
of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th
1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1.
Peter writes that our Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ and that our God and Savior is Jesus Christ.
"our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1)
"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:11)
"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 2:20)
"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18)
The Lord and the Savior or the God and the Savior are distinct but not separate. Revelation speak of the Lord as distinct from Jesus Christ:
"The kingdom of the world has become the [kingdom] of our Lord and of His Christ." (Rev. 11:15)
"our Lord" is distinct here from "His Christ".
Yet we cannot deny that there is ONE Lord (Eph. 4:5).
And Jesus Christ is preached as the Lord - "For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ..." (2 Cor. 4:5)
So the New Testament has the Lord and Christ as distinct but not separate.
The New Testament also has God and Savior Jesus Christ as distinct but not separate.
Furthermore the indwelling Christ is the Lord Spirit:
"Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) of which a few NT Greek scholars comment in the Recovery Version footnotes:
"The Lord Christ of v.16 is the Spirit who pervades and animates the new covenant of which we are ministers (v.6), and the ministration of which is with glory (v.8). Compare Rom. 8:9-11; John 14:16, 18" [Vincent]
"The Lord of v. 16, is the Spirit ... which giveth life, v.6: meaning, 'the Lord,' as here spoken of, 'Christ,' 'is the Spirit,' indentical with the Holy Spirit ... Christ, here, is the Spirit of Christ" [Alford]
"All that transforming and indwelling Spirit is Christ Himself. 'The Lord is the Spirit' " [Williston Walker]
According to Revelation 22:6 "the Lord" is the God -
"And he said to me, These words are faithful and true; and the Lord, the GOD of the spirits of the prophets, has sent His angel to show ..."
God incarnate, died, and resurrected in Christ is now the Lord with our regenerated human spirit - "the spirits of the prophets" must mean the born again spirit of those who speak forth for God and speak forth God. The Lord is with our spirit - "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you" (2 Tim. 4:22)
God's being a trinity is for His dispensing Himself into us as divine life. And He passed through incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and life impartation to dispense God into man.
The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is now the Lord Spirit by Whom we live.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI beg your pardon. What about these verses that have Godhead in them?
I know they are not the same person, i even know why they are not the same person,
I even demonstrated with reference to the original language text. Its not me you
should be preaching to, its divesgeester. Godhead is a not found in scripture, your
pagan doctrines have no place here.
because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
(Colossians 2:9 Young's Literal Translation)
for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world,
by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His
eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable;
(Romans 1:20 Young's Literal Translation)
Being, therefore, offspring of God, we ought not to think the
Godhead to be like to gold, or silver, or stone, graving of art
and device of man;
(Acts 17:29 Young's Literal Translation)
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsAt Acts 17:29, Paul, when in Athens, showed that it is illogical for humans to imagine
I beg your pardon. What about these verses that have Godhead in them?
because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
(Colossians 2:9 Young's Literal Translation)
for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world,
by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His
eternal power and Godhead -- to ver, or stone, graving of art
and device of man;
(Acts 17:29 Young's Literal Translation)
that “the Divine Being [to theion, form of theios] is like gold or silver or stone.”
Many translators here use terms such as “the Godhead,” “the Deity,” or “the divinity”
(KJ, AS, Dy, ED, JB, RS), while E. J. Goodspeed’s translation says “the divine
nature.”
According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the expression to theion
“is derived from the adjective theíos, meaning ‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’” (Edited
by G. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 913) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon gives
as the meaning “the Divinity.” (Revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, pp. 787, 788) So
the phrase to theion can be understood to refer to a person or to a quality.
Obviously, then, the context must guide the translator in his choice of words. Here at
Acts 17:29, the context clearly shows that the person of God is being described,
and so the expression is appropriately rendered “Divine Being” in the New World
Translation.—Compare NIV.
At Romans 1:20 the apostle refers to the undeniable visible evidence of God’s
“invisible qualities,” particularly his “eternal power and Godship [Theiotes].” Other
translations read “Godhead” or “deity” (KJ, NE, RS, JB), conveying to many the idea
of personality, the state of being a person. However, according to Liddell and Scott’s
Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek word theiotes means “divine nature, divinity.” (P.
788) So there is a basis for rendering theiotes as referring to the quality of being a
god, not the person of God, and this is supported by the context. The apostle is
discussing things that are discernible in the physical creation. For example, while the
creation does not reveal the name of God, it does give evidence of his “eternal
power”—needed to create and sustain the universe. The physical creation also
displays his “Godship,” the fact that the Creator truly is God and is worthy of our
worship.
Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says that in Christ “all the fullness of the
divine quality [form of theotes] dwells bodily.” Here, again, some translations read
“Godhead” or “deity,” which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells
in Christ. (KJ, NE, RS, NAB) However, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon
defines theotes in basically the same way it does theiotes, as meaning “divinity,
divine nature.” (P. 792) The Syriac Peshtta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as
“divinity.” Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering theiotes as referring to
quality, not personality.
A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having “divinity,”
or “divine nature,” does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the
preceding chapter, Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” (Col
1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy),
because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in
Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that
having such “fullness” does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the
fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being “seated at the right hand of God.”—Col
3:1.
Considering the immediate context of Colossians 2:9, it is noted that in verse 8,
Christians are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and
human tradition. They are also told that “carefully concealed in [Christ] are all the
treasures of wisdom and of knowledge,” and they are urged to “go on walking in
union with him, rooted and being built up in him and being stabilized in the faith.”
(Col 2:3, 6, 7) In addition, verses 13 to 15 explain that they are made alive through
faith, being released from the Law covenant. Paul’s argument, therefore, is that
Christians do not need the Law (which was removed by means of Christ) or human
philosophy and tradition. They have all they need, a precious “fullness,” in
Christ.—Col 2:10-12.
Finally, at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 the apostle shows that by virtue of “the precious and very
grand promises” extended to faithful anointed Christians, they “may become sharers
in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through
lust.” Elsewhere in the Scriptures, Christians are referred to as ‘sharing’ with Christ
in his sufferings, in a death like his, and in a resurrection like his to immortality as
spirit creatures, becoming joint heirs with him in the heavenly Kingdom. (1Co
15:50-54; Php 3:10, 11; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:2-4; Re 20:6) Thus it is evident that the
sharing of Christians in “divine nature” is a sharing with Christ in his glory.
have your translators been caught with their pants down again RJH, demonstrating
their trinitarian bias? It would appear so.
Originally posted by tomtom232its debatable whether Christ was actually crucified on a cross or a crux simplex, a simple stake.
Let us put this thread "on the cross" and if it ressurects itself in three days before it hits page 20 then we will all know that Jesus and the concepts in the bible are the ones we, respectively, believe in.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour'e probably noticing as I am that the more srciptures we show them, scriptures that are in their own Bibles and many many non JW links that completely prove this trinity thing wrong and the origin of it, the more resistant they are getting. Not only are they showing a hatred for the work we do as Jesus told us all to to do if we truly follow him but the more distain they are showing for the Bible.
At Acts 17:29, Paul, when in Athens, showed that it is illogical for humans to imagine
that “the Divine Being [to theion, form of theios] is like gold or silver or stone.”
Many translators here use terms such as “the Godhead,” “the Deity,” or “the divinity”
(KJ, AS, Dy, ED, JB, RS), while E. J. Goodspeed’s translation says “the divine
nature. ...[text shortened]... ht with their pants down again RJH, demonstrating
their trinitarian bias? It would appear so.
It would seem this weeding out work that the Bible said would be done in the last days is truly happening here.
I guess there is always hope but it doesn't look like it's going to happen with these
gentleman. I wish them well.....
Originally posted by galveston75Its actually quite elementary Gman, the original language text does not support their
Your'e probably noticing as I am that the more srciptures we show them, scriptures that are in their own Bibles and many many non JW links that completely prove this trinity thing wrong and the origin of it, the more resistant they are getting. Not only are they showing a hatred for the work we do as Jesus told us all to to do if we truly follow him but ...[text shortened]... pe but it doesn't look like it's going to happen with these
gentleman. I wish them well.....
dogma, because the Bible writers had no concept of a trinity, that is why they must
cherry pick verses and cite biased translations. All one needs to do is refer them to the
text in the original language and demonstrate it features and how these have a
bearing on our understanding and they are lost. But i agree, to pour scorn on the
work of trying to help people apply Biblical principles in their life is inexcusable.