Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses

[freelight]

No one, but you, maintained that The Son was The Father to begin with.

Can you quote where I assumed this anywhere? I did not. Not even a Trinitarian would claim that, since there is distinction of 'personality' between these two. Where you got this, who knows? :idunno:

How is it that you still don't understand The Trinity?

I understand the Trinity in ways that you are apparently unaware of, and there is an even greater revelation of a 'Paradise Trinity' revealed in the UB. - There are dozens of other conceptions of God in his various personalities in other traditions as well, nothing new here concerning the manifold unity of Deity

Also, schooling on John 1:18 holds here :thumb:

 

[Apple7]

Can you quote where I assumed this anywhere? I did not.

Your entire post revolves around The Son not being The Father....of which, was never a contention to begin with.

When will you ever learn?

Not even a Trinitarian would claim that, since there is distinction of 'personality' between these two. Where you got this, who knows? :idunno:

Trinitarians already know that The Son is not The Father.

Look to my avatar to see your continued error.

Also, schooling on John 1:18 holds here

A 'schooling' in what...?

Googling?

Let me guess....in lieu of defending your googled post, you will hence force be referring the reader to (the now) a link as supposed 'refutation' for them to consider as 'evidence'.....right?

Pathetic....as usual.....but, it is your ignorant way...:guitar:

 

[freelight]

Lets be honest here..........

Lets be honest here..........

My former post holds here.

Your entire post revolves around The Son not being The Father....of which, was never a contention to begin with.

Not really,.....as a Trinitarian I already know you believe in distinction of persons within the Godhead,....if you actually read my entire post, and the read the article and watched the videos about John 1:18, you'd be more enlightened to understanding the points being elaborated there. You've totally overlooked my expose on John 1:18, wherewith you could actually make an informed/educated response to, but since you didn't you cant. It would be logical to address the info. shared on this passage alone, if you'd like to engage in an honest discussion about it. I bring this to the fore because the passage differs in various texts (two main traditions), and interestingly could be used inter-changeably by both Unitarians and Trinitarians, hence the peculiar nuance of the text variation. Can you follow that? But you need to know whats behind the 'textual criticism' here, and consider all the points, both historically and doctrinally, that's why I share the info. There is a versatility there that even transcends your 'dogmatism' if you have the courage to discuss it without dismissive antics or polemics, which are unnecessary in an objective dialogue.

Trinitarians already know that The Son is not The Father.

Note I've acknowledged this already.

Look to my avatar to see your continued error.

Your 'avatar' does not necessarily prove 'God' is a Trinity, except to show how the concept is 'assumed' within a traditional-orthodox Christian purview....which to many is a peculiar 'con-fusion'. Anyone trained in universal metaphysics could accept some version of a 'Trinity' or 'manifold oneness' (whether 'personalized' or 'impersonal' as well), since we assume 'Deity' is the source of all 'personality' and 'personalities' as well as all that is 'non-personal' (the total of material creation, all forms and appearances).

Don't forget too, if you want a more awesome cosmically wonderful revelation of the Supreme Trinity, see the Urantia Papers upon the subject.

A 'schooling' in what...?

Googling?

Let me guess....in lieu of defending your googled post, you will hence force be referring the reader to (the now) a link as supposed 'refutation' for them to consider as 'evidence'.....right?

Yes, you heard it....a proper schooling which includes better research. Does that hurt your religious egoity and pride, that you could maybe learn something new that might disprove your prior assumption? I posted an excellent link on John 1:18, and 2 complete video presentations on the passage as well. If you have the dignity or intellectual honesty to read the article and watch the videos, then maybe you could challenge, refute and orchestrate an 'appropriate' response to the info. shared. Are you capable of that? (or don't want to waste your time because you already know better?)

In summary,....in light of John 1:18,...it does not necessarily prove your 'Trinity' concept, but carries on the same theme that it is the Son that reveals the Father, whether this 'Son' is a 'begotten god', or a 'begotten Son',....whatever phraseology you use,....you still have a 'begotten being', who is the 'offspring' of a Fathering Deity. The Son is ever 'begotten', no matter how you assume the nature or process of this 'begetting' is.

You have two personalities, distinct, separate in dual-relation, even if you assume they are somehow one essence (you can play your 'metaphysics' anyway you please). So you see,...what I bring to the fore goes way beyond picking a particular side of the Unitarnian/Trinitarian debate, since I explore and consider all dimensions and possibilities involved here. There does not have to be a dogmatic conclusion to any of this, but that all aspects of the equation are considered.

The basic fundamental of Deity ever holds, as being indivisible, incorporeal, infinite, eternal, immortal,......'God' being 'ONE' (the One absolute universal all-supreme, ultimate reality). - all else are figurations, concepts, images, forms, assumptions, observations, speculations, descriptions of 'God'.

 

[KingdomRose]

The Trinity is clearly explained in scripture

John 1:1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 1:1-2 King James Version (KJV)

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us

I absolutely agree with you that the Word became flesh and dwelt among mankind, yet you keep citing that verse for some reason. Anyway, I continue to observe, you are not touching the following verses from John, which cannot be taken any other way (though your verses can):

John 5: 19,30

John 6: 38

John 8: 28,29

John 12: 49,50

John 14: 24,28

John 17: 3



:Shimei:

 

[Bright Raven]

But, I continue to observe, you are not touching the following verses from John, which cannot be taken any other way (though your verses can):

John 5: 19,30

John 6: 38

John 8: 28,29

John 12: 49,50

John 14: 24,28

John 17: 3



:Shimei:

Is the Son the Son of God?

 

[KingdomRose]

Again...

Please don't continue to debase yourself by posing to know Greek - when you clearly do not!

Here is a verse with the article, and it applies directly, and irrefutably, to Jesus...

σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου


Go tell your lies to someone else...

(I didn't say that John 1:1 didn't apply to Jesus! He was WITH God, and he was/is an important, powerful person.)

You do not have to pay attention to our King's pleadings to you....I don't really care. You are saying I can't see something that is clear to me, right in front of me. So you are saying that Jason BeDuhn, an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona U. (Flagstaff) is LYING. And you are saying that Bart Ehrman, world reknowned Bible scholar, is LYING. You are saying that Benjamin Wilson who translated the Emphatic Diaglott is LYING. I could name many more. They are all LYING. To you.


:kookoo:

 

[KingdomRose]

Is the Son the Son of God?

I have said that he is, from one end of this forum to the other. I guess you just missed all of my posts.

 

[Bright Raven]

I have said that he is, from one end of this forum to the other. I guess you just missed all of my posts.

Guess you missed the fact of what the Pharisees knew he said.

John 5:18 King James Version (KJV)

18 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.

Seems as though He was saying that He was God the Son.

 

[Apple7]

My former post holds here.

Non-sequitur.

Not really,.....as a Trinitarian I already know you believe in distinction of persons within the Godhead,....if you actually read my entire post, and the read the article and watched the videos about John 1:18, you'd be more enlightened to understanding the points being elaborated there. You've totally overlooked my expose on John 1:18, wherewith you could actually make an informed/educated response to, but since you didn't you cant. It would be logical to address the info. shared on this passage alone, if you'd like to engage in an honest discussion about it. I bring this to the fore because the passage differs in various texts (two main traditions), and interestingly could be used inter-changeably by both Unitarians and Trinitarians, hence the peculiar nuance of the text variation. Can you follow that? But you need to know whats behind the 'textual criticism' here, and consider all the points, both historically and doctrinally, that's why I share the info. There is a versatility there that even transcends your 'dogmatism' if you have the courage to discuss it without dismissive antics or polemics, which are unnecessary in an objective dialogue.

All you did was google your reply.

That's not research.

In fact, all you did was type in John 1.18 into your google search bar to see what might come up....and you went with the first video that launched a Trinity polemic...and you rolled with it.

However, in your googling haste, you missed the entire point of why I posted John 1.18 in the first place, and that was to demonstrate Jesus' deity....NOT The Trinity!

Read before you reply.

Your 'avatar' does not necessarily prove 'God' is a Trinity, except to show how the concept is 'assumed' within a traditional-orthodox Christian purview....which to many is a peculiar 'con-fusion'. Anyone trained in universal metaphysics could accept some version of a 'Trinity' or 'manifold oneness' (whether 'personalized' or 'impersonal' as well), since we assume 'Deity' is the source of all 'personality' and 'personalities' as well as all that is 'non-personal' (the total of material creation, all forms and appearances).

My avatar shows the sum total of scripture as it relates to the deity of the God of The Holy Bible.

The Trinity already represents the entirety of scripture - thus, no scripture thwarts it.

Don't forget too, if you want a more awesome cosmically wonderful revelation of the Supreme Trinity, see the Urantia Papers upon the subject.

Absolutely no one is interested in 'your raunchy toilet papers'...so stop using threads, such as this one, as a spring board for your propaganda.

In summary,....in light of John 1:18,...it does not necessarily prove your 'Trinity' concept, but carries on the same theme that it is the Son that reveals the Father, whether this 'Son' is a 'begotten god', or a 'begotten Son',....whatever phraseology you use,....you still have a 'begotten being', who is the 'offspring' of a Fathering Deity. The Son is ever 'begotten', no matter how you assume the nature or process of this 'begetting' is.

Again...

You are the only one to make this assertion...and you are simply parroting what you googled from the web.

The purpose of John 1.18 is to demonstrate Jesus' deity.

Deal with it...

 

[Apple7]

More Clinic...

More Clinic...

(I didn't say that John 1:1 didn't apply to Jesus! He was WITH God, and he was/is an important, powerful person.)

You do not have to pay attention to our King's pleadings to you....I don't really care. You are saying I can't see something that is clear to me, right in front of me. So you are saying that Jason BeDuhn, an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona U. (Flagstaff) is LYING. And you are saying that Bart Ehrman, world reknowned Bible scholar, is LYING. You are saying that Benjamin Wilson who translated the Emphatic Diaglott is LYING. I could name many more. They are all LYING. To you.


:kookoo:

Not only does the Greek article apply to Theos when attributed to The Father, but I showed you a rock-solid example of where the same exact Greek article is applied to Theos when Jesus is the referent.

This, as you already agree, makes Jesus 'The God'....!





Another doorstep demolition of a JW...

:cigar:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Guess you missed the fact of what the Pharisees knew he said.

John 5:18 King James Version (KJV)

18 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.

Seems as though He was saying that He was God the Son.

No.

He said He was the son of God.

Do you know what a son is?

Apparently not.

LA

 

[Bright Raven]

No.

He said He was the son of God.

Do you know what a son is?

Apparently not.

LA

The why was he accused of blasphemy? :duh:

 

[KingdomRose]

Guess you missed the fact of what the Pharisees knew he said.

John 5:18 King James Version (KJV)

18 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.

Seems as though He was saying that He was God the Son.

No, he wasn't. The Jews ACCUSED him of such a thing, but he had not said that. He said that God was his Father, the same Father that he said was "the only true God." (John 17:3) The Jews TWISTED that, just as you are doing. They said he was making himself equal with God, but that is not what he was doing at all. In fact, Jesus straightened them out with what he said next:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do NOTHING of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (verse 19, NASB)

How much clearer could he be that he was NOT equal to God? He explained that he LEARNED from the Father, and he didn't know how to do anything unless he watched the Father doing it! It's important to read something in context, and not just pick out a verse here and there.

oly:

 

[KingdomRose]

Not only does the Greek article apply to Theos when attributed to The Father, but I showed you a rock-solid example of where the same exact Greek article is applied to Theos when Jesus is the referent.

This, as you already agree, makes Jesus 'The God'....!





Another doorstep demolition of a JW...

No, you showed me no such thing. For all I know, you could've been posting a Greek sentence from some other part of the Bible! I only saw "god" mentioned once in your Greek sentence. There is no article in front of "god was the word."

:kookoo::nono:

 

[meshak]

No, he wasn't. The Jews ACCUSED him of such a thing, but he had not said that. He said that God was his Father, the same Father that he said was "the only true God." (John 17:3) The Jews TWISTED that, just as you are doing. They said he was making himself equal with God, but that is not what he was doing at all. In fact, Jesus straightened them out with what he said next:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do NOTHING of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (verse 19, NASB)

How much clearer could he be that he was NOT equal to God? He explained that he LEARNED from the Father, and he didn't know how to do anything unless he watched the Father doing it! It's important to read something in context, and not just pick out a verse here and there.

oly:

Amen, well said.

 

[Bright Raven]

Amen, well said.

You agree with contradictions to the scripture?

 

[Apple7]

No, you showed me no such thing. For all I know, you could've been posting a Greek sentence from some other part of the Bible! I only saw "god" mentioned once in your Greek sentence. There is no article in front of "god was the word."

Of course it was another verse, JW.:rotfl:

It was provided to show everyone that...

a. You don't know any Greek whatsoever.

and...

b. Jesus is referred to as 'The God'.


Owned.

 

[Apple7]

No, he wasn't. The Jews ACCUSED him of such a thing, but he had not said that. He said that God was his Father, the same Father that he said was "the only true God." (John 17:3) The Jews TWISTED that, just as you are doing. They said he was making himself equal with God, but that is not what he was doing at all. In fact, Jesus straightened them out with what he said next:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do NOTHING of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (verse 19, NASB)

How much clearer could he be that he was NOT equal to God? He explained that he LEARNED from the Father, and he didn't know how to do anything unless he watched the Father doing it! It's important to read something in context, and not just pick out a verse here and there.

oly:

Your cherry-picked verse tells us that The Son is not The Father.

So what?

We already know this.

The Trinity already comprehends this.

Jesus is proclaimed to be Theos in numerous other passages in John.

Deal with it.

Don't run from it...it makes you look silly...like a follower of a cult...

 

[Apple7]

He said that God was his Father, the same Father that he said was "the only true God." (John 17:3)

I already showed you numerous times that there are no grammatical reasons that John 17.3 has to apply to The Father.

Stop your running and address my rebuttal.

 

[Eric h]

There is only 'One Jesus Christ' Why do we have to be so divided?