Posted on 12/21/2009 12:08:37 PM PST by annieup
FIRST OF ALL THE WITNESSES ARE NOT A CULT. THAT OPINION WAS FORMED BY SOMEONE THAT OBVIOUSLY FEELS THREATNED BY THE TRUTH.IT AMAZES ME THAT WHENEVER A WITNESS DOES SOMETHING WRONG IT MAKES THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWS! IF A BABTIST OR PROTESTANT DOES SOMETHING WRONG IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RELIGION. AND THIS BIG COVER UP GARBAGE IS A JOKE. ADMITTEDLY THEY ARE NOT PERFECT NOR CLAIM TO BE. MATT 24:9 SAYS THAT WE WOULD BE OBJECTS OF HATRED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NAME. WHAT OTHER RELIGION IS HATED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NAME? ONLY 1 THAT I CAN THINK OF THE WITNESSES PROUDLY GLORIFY JEHOVAHS NAME. ALSO WE ARE NOT PROGRAMMED. WE HAVE FREE WILL,GOD DOES NOT WANT ROBOTS, THAT IS WHY HE GAVE ADAM AND EVE FREE WILL. AND WE DO BELIEVE IN JESUS. HE IS GODS SON AND HE DID GIVE HIS LIFE FOR OUR SINS. I ALSO GET A KICK OUT OF THOSE WHO TELL US WHAT WE BELIEVE, ESPECIALLY IF IT ISN'T TRUE. PEOPLE JUST MAKE UP WHAT THEY WANT ABOUT THE WITNESSES AND THE NAIVE ONES BELIEVE IT. IF IT IS TRUE THEN LOOK INTO WHY WE BELIEVE WHAT WE DO. DONT JUST ASSUME TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THEY TEACH OR BELLIEVE BASED ON SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION. TALK ABOUT HAVING A MIND OF YOUR OWN!!
“2000 years of straightforward scholarship” have not diluted the errors of Trinitarianism. Many scholars upholding Biblical truth rather than religious tradition have also spoken out during those years, despite being marginalized, persecuted and even killed.
Of course Trinitarians exalt their own scholars as “correct,” and brand those who hold to the Bible as “odd.” Seems like the Scribes and Pharisees did the same with the Lord Jesus Christ.
“Degrees mean little,” except when it’s your guys that have them, obviously.
Cutting and pasting from blogs filled with erroneous and outdated information is something that Trinitarians do all the time.
Referencing blogs that contain accurate, correct information is always useful, regardless of whose they are.
But these are not my blogs.
http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com/
http://www.bibliacoptica.com/resources/copticnoute.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/
There is only one God, period.
Perhaps the scholars who kept trying to prove Christianity was a polytheistic faith were marginalized for being wrong and/or a few ticks past nuts...
Just a thought.
Zilla, you were right.
Polytheism, when one god just isn't enough...
I think one of the problems that they have with the Trinity is that they just can’t conceive of a being that complex. They want God in a nice, neat little box of their own construct. So they make God a single being and Jesus a god and thereby making God a liar but themselves comfortable.
Indeed.
Not at all. If the Trinity were true, the Lord Jesus Christ would have taught it, or his apostles would have explained it. They never even used the word. And to say that the concept exists in the Scriptures is flat wrong.
Human philosophers have attempted to invalidate the Word of God by introducing neo-Platonic concepts like the Trinity, the wisdom of the Greeks that God considers to be foolishness. (1 Corinthians 1:20-25) God nowhere says that He is three-in-one, or three persons in one God.
If the belief that there are three Gods, all equal in every respect, is not polytheism, then the term has no meaning at all. To say that these three Gods constitute one God, is a fiction that is taught nowhere in the Scriptures.
“For to us [Christians], there is one God, the Father.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) God is identified as One, and that One is the Father, not Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
In prayer, the Lord Jesus Christ specifically called the Father “the only true God.” (John 17:3) He did not say ‘You, I, and the Holy Spirit are the only true God.’
It is not those who believe in biblical Monotheism who attempt to make liars of God.
bar_enosh
John 10:30-34
30 I and the Father are one."
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Even the Jews knew what Jesus was saying.
You are doing eisegesis, not exegesis. Jesus did not say, “I and the Father are one God.” But that is how Trinitarians interpret it.
Jesus could not have meant “one God,” since God is masculine gender in Greek, but John 10:30 uses *hen*, the neuter form of “one.” One in purpose is meant, not one in “person.”
Amazing how Trinitarians accept that the Jews were wrong about Jesus, yet somehow those same Jews were right in saying that Jesus claimed to be God.
In John 10:36, Jesus himself sets the record straight about whom he claimed to be:
“What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” — New International Version. “God’s Son,” not God.
Other verses make it clear that the Jews had other reasons for wanting to stone Jesus, including performing miracles on the Sabbath, and fear of loss of their political positions.
“Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. ‘What are we accomplishing?’ they asked. ‘Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, ‘You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’ — John 11:47-50, NIV
Sorry, none of the Trinitarian “proof texts” prove the Trinity.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/11/trinity-proof-texts.html
(The above blog is not mine.)
bar_enosh
Sorry but it's the JW cult that reads into Scripture and even twists it to say what they want. You gloss over John 10: 30 I and the Father are one.". That's classic eisegesis on your part.
Because the Scriptures are clear, JW's are discouraged from reading any Bible but theirs. And they are discouraged from reading it without Watchtower helps because they would see the truth.
There is only one true God and he is greater than you can accept or imagine. He has no other way to explain His fullness other than the Trinity. We are too stupid to understand. There's a reason He refers to us as sheep. And it isn't because we are His genius children.
Here is true eisegesis at work DJ. Let common sense and context prevail. If one in "purpose" was Jesus' intent - the Jews would not have reacted as they did. Didn't the Jews have unity of purpose with the father? Therefore, his argument fails from an internal standard.
Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form of the word translated "one" (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their action. Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father's purpose, but with His Father's power (vs. 28 - 29). Jesus has said that no one can snatch those the Father has given Him from His hands. He has said that He gives eternal life to His sheep - a claim to Divine prerogative in itself. He then repeats what He has said about no one being able to steal His sheep, but this time, it is the Father's hands who hold them - the Father who is "greater than all." Thus, Jesus equates Himself to His Father in both giving eternal life to the sheep and in the power to "hold" them fast. It is in this context of Divine salvation and preservation that Jesus says, "I and the Father are one."
AT Robertson states regarding "hen"
One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. in Gal 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21). Note hen used in 1 Cor 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in 17:11, 23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (RWP).
In The Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible we read, "Heis means one numerically while hen means one in essence, as in John 10:30; 'I and My Father are one (hen)' (i.e., one in essence although two different personalities). Had it said heis, it would have meant one person" (Zodhiates, p. 1711).
“What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” — New International Version. “God’s Son,” not God.
Note - not ONCE did Jesus deny the charge. Infact, in His discussion in vs 32-39. In fact, Ps 82 may have sent them into deep thought so when He made the proclamation a second time, they concluded, "He's blasphemed again!" (vs 39).
Other verses make it clear that the Jews had other reasons for wanting to stone Jesus, including performing miracles on the Sabbath, and fear of loss of their political positions.
Once again this gets the context wrong. Jewish law permitted stoning for specific offenses - even the Jewish leadership knew their hands were tied and the accusation for Jesus' execution was blasphemy.
(The above blog is not mine.) bar_enosh
Are you that concerned regarding a blog that you are a significant contributor to Solomon?
What I see bar_enosh trying to do is neuter God. Cut Him down to size. I see no love of God in what the JW's try to do to His fullness.
And I suppose that bar_enosh thought that I wouldn't know what exegesis and eisegesis is. But the JW's use eisegesis as do all cults, read into the Word whatever you want.
Compare Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.”
Bear with me and let's see where this takes us.
God begins His revelation to us with the words:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
Now for the first of several Hebrew lessons. When the Hebrews referred to a gentile (non-Jewish person) the word in Hebrew is goy. The plural of goy is goyim. The word is also translated ‘nations’ (and ‘heathen’). The Hebrew word for God (singular) is El so God Almighty is El Shaddai. The plural, gods, would be elohim. (See the pattern?) So when the Bible says that the Gods of the nations are idols (Psalm 96:5) it is the elohim of the goyim are idols. File that bit of information for now, and we’ll come back to it.
The concepts of God and who He is are so much greater than our comprehension that at best we can only scratch the surface of understanding the Person and the Nature of God. Theologians have a vocabulary of their own containing descriptive words that attempt to convey some of this meaning to us in ways we can manage. Because these are concept words, they are not necessarily found in Scripture, but the concept(s) are clearly taught. Take for instance the fact that God is all-powerful. This concept is clearly taught in the Bible. Theologians call this characteristic, or attribute of God "omnipotence." The word omnipotence does not appear in the original texts of the Bible, but we would be foolish to say that God is NOT omnipotent just because that particular descriptive word is lacking in the Biblical narrative.
We can clearly demonstrate that God knows everything, that there is not a single bit of knowledge that is outside of His awareness. The theological word for this is "omniscience", and again, we cannot say God is NOT all-knowing just because theologians use a descriptive word not found in the scriptures.
God is omnipresent, He is everywhere present within and without His creation yet is wholly separate from it. God is personal. God is holy. God is just, merciful, and the embodiment of love. All of these words fall short of giving us a total understanding of the Person and Nature of God. Indeed, if you were capable of totally understanding God, then just possibly it is not THE God you are understanding!
Throughout the Bible narrative, God is proclaimed as the only God, and in a culture that was polytheistic, we find the Bible boldly declaring:
“Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Now for the second Hebrew lesson. The root for "one" in Hebrew is chd. Hebrew is written without vowels, so those consonants are what are written. The word (with vowels added to help us out) for ‘one and only unique one’ is yachiyd. This word is typically rendered ‘only’ in English, but it means ‘one’. When God told Abraham in Genesis 22:2 to take his son to Moriah and offer him as a sacrifice, the text literally says ‘Take your son, your ONE son...’ (yachiyd).
The word that signifies ‘one in unity’ is echad. Genesis 2:24 shows this usage when we read:
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
(Ezra 3:1 and Ezekiel 37:17 are other examples of this concept.)
Now, here’s the question. In Genesis 1:1, is the word that God the Author of the Word chose for God singular or plural, El or Elohim? And, in Deuteronomy 6:4, is the word that God chose when He described Himself as One the word for ‘one and only unique one’ or the word for ‘one in unity’, yachiyd or echad?
Remember that God is the author of His Word, and He chose the words (that’s a theological concept called verbal inspiration of scripture) to convey to us what He wanted to convey, which, when you realize you’re talking God-stuff, is not all that easy to humanly comprehend. Nevertheless, if God said it, He meant it whether we get it or not.
Time for another theological word that is not found in the Bible. The word is Trinity and means ‘three in one.’ Remember that we determined that the lack of a word in Scripture does not negate the concept if that concept is clearly taught in Holy Writ? Well, here’s probably the most difficult theological idea to grasp, but it is one that is clearly taught. God is ONE, yes. God is the ONLY God, yes. But God is ONE in Unity. The answers to the question above are Elohim (the plural form) and echad (one in unity, not only unique one) . That is the choice of words that the Author used, and whatever we do with the passages, whatever doctrines, teachings, and concepts we draw about the Person and attributes of God, we must remember that, whether or not it lends itself to an easy explanation.
So.... whatever interpretation anyone chooses to use to describe God, it needs to agree with how God Himself described Himself, don't you think? (Of course, the question only applies if you are allowed to think... ;-)
In other words, they are not allowed to think?
This is why watchtower keeps such tight wraps upon bible studies - to maintain and force THEIR theology upon the scripture, and when that failed, they jinned up the NWT.
“Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.”—The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 587
“They say that it is sufficient to read the bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago…”—The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, pp. 28-29
Interesting that watchtower admits that study of the bible - absent watchtower control - yields Christian doctrinal understanding - including the Trinity.
“Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years—if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness.” —The Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, p. 298, Watchtower Reprints, p. 4685
“We must not lose sight of the fact that God is directing his organization… To turn away from Jehovah and his organization, to spurn the direction of ‘the faithful and discreet slave,’ and to rely simply on personal Bible reading and interpretation is to become like a solitary tree in a parched land.”—The Watchtower, June 1, 1985, pp. 19-20
“Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.”—The Watchtower, December 1, 1981, p. 27
With this much mind control, it makes one wonder when they are going to make the next prediction of the end of the world?
Good grief no! And if someone stumps them, they get answers from a higher up. They aren't allowed to look up stuff on their own. They are spoon fed twisted Scripture. Take note of poster bar_enosh. They couldn't answer questions on this thread and, VOILA!, a newbie signs up to answer for them.
Thanks for the quotes.
Don't know what the next prediction from The Watchtower Bible and Track Society will be , but there's this nutcase on a bunch of radio stations that say they are family (or something like that) that says it will be May 21, 2011... ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist... That's a whole 'nother discussion ;-)
Not just control of scripture, but control of
- control of behavior
- control of thoughts
- control of emotions
- control of information
Yeah. Earlier in the thread I spoke about a friend I had that was a JW. I was attending an Assembly of God. They told her that if she went shopping with me again, they’d disfellowship her. We never spoke about religion or beliefs. But I was still a threat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.