The Trinity

[glorydaz]

It took me a while to digest the scriptural facts that:

1) Satan was bound at The Cross.

2) The God of this world is NOT Satan.


Two vital items that no one EVER taught me; I had to learn each the HARD way, through persistent exegesis.

But, it paid off big time, and once #1 is understood, #2 is a given.

Too many peeps out there are using Rev 20 to dictate their eschatology, and thus pigeon-holing their worldview into thinking that Satan is still running around possessing people and that Jesus did nothing to stop this at The Cross.

People end up stealing Jesus' deity and giving it to Satan!

What a sorry state of affairs that is!





Why would your passage change your mind?

Two verses prior, 1 John 2.14, declares that Jesus allowed us to become victorious over the Evil One (i.e. Satan).

Satan is most assuredly bound - but his demons are not...

Well, satan certainly doesn't have the power he had before the cross. Some say if he's bound, it only with a short chain. A roaring lion seeking whom he MAY devour.....needs a person's permission. Where before, he could enter (possess) people at will.

There is this....

Col. 2:15 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.​

But there is also this....

Ephesians 2:2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:​

I've actually pondered this for years...I honestly don't see it as people stealing Jesus' deity and giving it to satan. Jesus is God over all....no doubt, but satan is certainly the god over all this world's systems, which is what I think the disputed verse is referring to.

 

[glorydaz]

I always enjoy your memes. You're just very clever. :thumb:

 

[glorydaz]

Sorry 7djengo7 I have to ask as I have been follow the thread and feel that on a number of times you have displayed dishonesty in your replies to NWL

Here is one example. How would answering the three questions as Yes show that NWL "have committed eisegesis upon the text by imposing your unitarianism upon it."

The text states "But to us there is but one God, the Father"
NWL's claim

Based on this text there is no eisegesis here

The text states "But to us there is but one God, the Father"
Your claim is there is one God, the Father(Son & HS)

Defination of Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

As it is plan to see for this scripture you inserted you own biases and presuppositions into the text.

It is wrong for you to claim someone is doing something that you yourself are doing. That is hypocrisy to the highest degree. Stop claiming people are inserting into the text when it is you who is doing this.

When asked what the text actually states just be Honest or others will see and may call you out as I have done.

If it is your position that the one God is the Father , Son and HS, then state that the text says "the one God is, the Father", but you believe other texts show that the Son and HS are also persons of the one God. Then bring out those texts and discuss them. In other words provide the proof or evidence as NWL requests.

This will help move your discussion forward.

Also on a number of occasions after NWL states what he believes and why (Clear enough for me to understand, I must say)
You then misrepresent his beliefs in your reply and then spend your time arguing against that, rather than what he actually has said. This is again very dishonest.

This is what we call a Red Herring

Defination: A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used.

Can I encourage you to stop doing this. Rather deal with what NWL or others actually say to you.

You've also been called out already (On more than one occasion) for using arguments from silence

(Definition - To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.)

And also Ad hominem attacks

Ad hominem Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

These are some of the deceitful tactics you've used.

I thought I would mention all this so that you realize that your dishonesty isn't going unnoticed by those reading the thread.

If you believe that you are correct why not let your arguments stand for themselves by providing evidence to back them up, rather than using these shocking debate tactics to make it seem like your argument is stronger.

Why not see if you can continue the discussion (and others), with honesty. Otherwise some may call you out again

Thank you for considering this





That all being I am also interested in something else you have said.

You have rejected you belief that Satan is "the god of this world", but haven't stated who you believe it to be.
What was your reasoning that you went over the last couple of days that caused you to reject this verse as applying to Satan?
Who do you think it applies to now?

You sound just like Rosenritter. School is back in session. :chuckle:

 

[Mixed_Brown]

You sound just like Rosenritter. School is back in session. :chuckle:

I don't know who that is, so have no idea if that is a compliment or not.
Maybe

 

[Mixed_Brown]

Maybe I'll come across him at some point

 

[glorydaz]

I don't know who that is, so have no idea if that is a compliment or not.
Maybe

It's not. School is not in session.

 

[glorydaz]

Maybe I'll come across him at some point

Or her.....

 

[7djengo7]

The text states "But to us there is but one God, the Father"
NWL's claim

Based on this text there is no eisegesis here

You are correct! Simply quoting the text is NOT eisegesis. What IS eisegesis is claiming that the text means something that it does NOT mean.

So, let me ask you: Does Paul, when he says "But to us there is but one God, the Father", MEAN that NONE but God the Father is YHWH? Yes or No?

If you answer "YES", you are committing eisegesis upon the text; you are imposing YOUR UNITARIANISM onto in claiming that it means that.

The text states "But to us there is but one God, the Father"

True.

Your claim is there is one God, the Father(Son & HS)

True.

Defination of Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

Yes, EISEGESIS is exactly what NWL, and YOU, are doing. BECAUSE you are presupposing your cherished UNITARIANISM, you claim that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, MEANS that ONLY God the Father is YHWH.

As it is plan to see for this scripture you inserted you own biases and presuppositions into the text.

This you spoke BECAUSE OF your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

It is wrong for you to claim someone is doing something that you yourself are doing. That is hypocrisy to the highest degree.

Well, that's an immensely stupid thing for you to say. You are writing posts on TOL, and I am writing posts on TOL; if that stupid thing you just said were TRUE, I would be guilty of "hypocrisy to the highest degree" for my having just claimed that "You are writing posts on TOL".

Stop claiming people are inserting into the text when it is you who is doing this.

This you spoke BECAUSE OF your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

When asked what the text actually states just be Honest or others will see and may call you out as I have done.

This you spoke BECAUSE of your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

If it is your position that the one God is the Father , Son and HS, then state that the text says "the one God is, the Father", but you believe other texts show that the Son and HS are also persons of the one God. Then bring out those texts and discuss them. In other words provide the proof or evidence as NWL requests.

All things in their proper time. See, BECAUSE OF your hatred of God, of Christ, that is, BECAUSE OF your vain imagination, that is, BECAUSE OF your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM, you will (so long as you hate Christ) ALWAYS DENY, of EVERY LAST JOT AND TITTLE OF SCRIPTURE, that it teaches TRINITARIANISM. So, obviously, at THIS POINT, it is simply useless to discuss (with those who, as NWL and yourself, PRESUPPOSE UNITARIANISM) the staggering multitude of passages which, BY their mutual logical coherence, and BY their necessary entailment, proclaim that the Son is YHWH, and that the Holy Spirit is YHWH. I specify: It is, at this point, ONLY useless to discuss those passages with you in such a manner as for me to say to you, of them, "These passages testify to the Trinity". For, since you are lost, then so long as you are lost, your vain imagination MUST ALWAYS despise the truth of those passages, and you will never believe them.

So, the first order of business is that you must be disabused of YOUR bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM, not to mention YOUR incredibly anti-intellectual, and downright STUPID bias and presupposition that YOU are somehow free of being biased, and of presupposing, in your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM. Obviously, I (nor any other person who is NOT YHWH), cannot disabuse you of your vain imagination. But, if you do become disabused of it, it will be by means of Scripture, and by means of you coming to see how you trap yourself by your own words. I'll try to expand on this some more, later, when I get some more time....

Also on a number of occasions after NWL states what he believes and why (Clear enough for me to understand, I must say)
You then misrepresent his beliefs in your reply and then spend your time arguing against that, rather than what he actually has said. This is again very dishonest.

You are very dishonest in charging me with misrepresenting what NWL has written to me. The CAUSE OF your dishonesty is your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

Can I encourage you to stop doing this. Rather deal with what NWL or others actually say to you.

Can I encourage you to step away from your vain imagination, and your immense stupidity, and hypocrisy, in pretending that YOU have no bias nor presupposition in your UNITARIANISM? Can I encourage you to stop lying about me, and, instead, deal with what I actually say to NWL, and to you?

You've also been called out already (On more than one occasion) for using arguments from silence


(Definition - To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.)

I stated the truth that the Bible NOWHERE states that Jesus is not YHWH, and NWL agrees! So, since NWL agrees that the Bible NOWHERE states that Jesus is not YHWH, he has cornered HIMSELF (and YOU) into admitting that either he has derived his claim that Jesus is not YHWH from some EXTRA-BIBLICAL source, or that he merely presupposes it out of thin air.

It is always dunces with NO FORESIGHT who are ready and eager (like NWL, yourself, and others) to whip out a little cliche phrase like "argument from silence", when you have already cornered yourself by your own inconsistency. It's a ploy of posers; that makes NWL (and you) a poser.

I thought I would mention all this so that you realize that your dishonesty isn't going unnoticed by those reading the thread.

Again, you write this BECAUSE OF your hatred of Christ, of truth, and BECAUSE OF your bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM.

If you believe that you are correct why not let your arguments stand for themselves by providing evidence to back them up, rather than using these shocking debate tactics to make it seem like your argument is stronger.

Well, you admit, here, that my argument is shocking and strong to you.

Why not see if you can continue the discussion (and others), with honesty. Otherwise some may call you out again

Now that you have been called out on your bias and presupposition that Jesus Christ is not YHWH, why not see if you can DITCH that filthy falsehood that you presuppose, and try to deal HONESTLY with me, instead of as the Christ-hating liar that you have, thus far, exhibited yourself to be?

You have rejected you belief that Satan is "the god of this world", but haven't stated who you believe it to be.

WHO I believe it to be? Where have I stated that I believe the pronoun 'who' must be applicable to the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"?

In YOUR case, one thing that perfectly fits the description of the god of this world spoken of by Paul is YOUR bias and presupposition of UNITARIANISM. That is what is blinding your mind against believing the glorious gospel of Christ.

 

[Apple7]

Well, satan certainly doesn't have the power he had before the cross. Some say if he's bound, it only with a short chain. A roaring lion seeking whom he MAY devour.....needs a person's permission. Where before, he could enter (possess) people at will.

It appears that Satan has always required permission, from his Creator, to possess someone...Job 1, Luke 22.31 - 32, etc...

There is this....

Col. 2:15 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.​

Clearly showing that Satan was bound at The Cross...

But there is also this....

Ephesians 2:2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:​

The key point in this passage is 'at present, putting forth power', of which, refers to Satan's demons, and not himself, personally.

The only 'power' that Satan has today is that his demons are still roaming free.

Jesus, Himself, told us in Mat 24 that terrible things would occur BEFORE the end comes, and BEFORE the release of the 'abomination of desolation' (i.e. Satan).

Jesus lists-out many things occurring BEFORE the release of Satan....false prophets, wars, rumors of wars, nation set against nation, famine, plagues, earthquakes, the killing of Christians, etc...

So....what we are seeing today IS to be expected, per scripture, and NOT because Satan is roaming free.


But....


When Satan is unbound, we will see, for a brief period, 'great affliction, such as has not happened from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.'

Everything going on in the world today has been seen played-out in various forms for thousands of years.

We need to be thankful to God that Satan is presently bound!

I've actually pondered this for years...I honestly don't see it as people stealing Jesus' deity and giving it to satan. Jesus is God over all....no doubt, but satan is certainly the god over all this world's systems, which is what I think the disputed verse is referring to.

I respectfully disagree...

Anyone that still thinks that the term Theos can be applied to The Devil, when it is a title for our God, Jesus, has just stolen Jesus' deity and applied it directly to Satan.

It simply cannot be viewed in any other fashion...

 

[Apple7]

 

[glorydaz]

I respectfully disagree...

Anyone that still thinks that the term Theos can be applied to The Devil, when it is a title for our God, Jesus, has just stolen Jesus' deity and applied it directly to Satan.

It simply cannot be viewed in any other fashion...

Is this Theos, too?

Philippians 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)​

What of this verse? This was after the Lord had been to the cross. Satan is said to have some power.

Acts 26:18
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

 

[7djengo7]

Anyone that still thinks that the term Theos can be applied to The Devil, when it is a title for our God, Jesus, has just stolen Jesus' deity and applied it directly to Satan.

As you know, I no longer think that there is any necessity to think that the referent of Paul's "the god of this world" is Satan, and, of course, I can't agree that it is YHWH, either. What caught my eye, and sparked a change in my thinking, was a glance at the 96th Psalm. In particular, v. 4 & 5:

4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

I suspect there may be something of an interesting parallelism between the Apostle's phrase, "the god of this world" and the Psalmist's phrase, "all the gods of the nations".

Would it really be to wreak total havoc upon Scripture, were we to consider certain other Scripture phrases as more or less interchangeable with Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", in 2 Corinthians 4:4?

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Would we be egregiously misunderstanding Paul, were we to think, for instance, that the Psalmist's phrase, "all the gods of the nations", might also make pretty good sense in v. 4, as a sort of stand-in for Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"?

In whom [all the gods of the nations] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...

Seeing as how the Psalmist has told us that all the gods of the nations are idols, we may, then, find the following to be even a bit more to the point:

In whom [all the [idols] of the nations] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...

According to Psalms 115 KJV, the idols* of the heathen (the nations**) "have mouths, but they speak not", and "eyes have they, but they see not". Now, a little further, it says that they that make idols, and they that trust in idols, are like unto their idols. And, it seems clear, from reading Psalm 115, that one way in which the idol-makers and idol-trusters are like unto their idols, is that they have eyes, but see not. In other words, they're blind. And, I doubt anybody will complain if I decline to bother, here, with writing an explanation of how that eye-blindness is spiritual, and not literally eye-blindness.

Another phrase I, personally, could consider to be somewhat similar in import to Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", is Paul's phrase from 2 Corinthians 10:5, "imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God". So, then, we might consider thinking of this phrase in the same context as his phrase, "the god of this world":

...them that are lost, in whom [imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...

Perhaps we won't be far wrong if we thought of it even more simply:

...them that are lost, in whom IDOLATRY hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...

These are just a few thoughts I've had over the last few days. I've taken note of several various passages throughout the Bible which, for one reason or another, seem to me of potential service in further trying to flesh out the (admittedly somewhat (as of yet) vague)idea I've tried to set forth, here. I'd be interested to hear what fellow Christians might think about the matter.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

* I've often wondered whether the word 'idol' has any etymological relation to the word 'doll', inasmuch as dolls and idols often are formed as more or less humanoid (made like to corruptible man), and can't see, hear, etc., and are, in general, severely mobility-impaired. (And usually, just downright creepy looking. Like the picture on my TOL 'avatar' (which I lifted from Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons).

**One time, the notion struck me that the word 'heathen' has just got to be etymologically related (from way, way back--like to proto-Indo-European days) to the word 'ethnic', which is derived from the Greek, ethnos (nation). I mean, hEaTHeN > E-TH-N > ETHNos; there's got to be something, there! Haven't really looked into it, though, to see what scholars might have to say. And, as much as I've looked into the etymology of various words over the years, I've learned to never get my hopes up too much on a hunch, because, quite often, what you find from the scholars turns out to be quite far from your own hunch, and often quite counter-intuitive, at that. But, I have, naturally, quite a strong taste for etymological speculation, and, even when I'm mistaken, it's always worth it for the mental stimulation that it's bound up with.

 

[NWL]

Here, you say that God the Father is a lord, and then you deny that God the Father is YOUR lord. You are saying, "I'll admit that God the Father is A lord, but He's NOT MY LORD!"

Whose lord would you say God the Father is, then? Is God the Father lord, but lord over nobody? Is God the Father lord over Jesus? Is God the Father lord of the sabbath?

Try to find even ONE VERSE, in Scripture, in which it is stated that God the Father is LORD OVER the Son of God. Try to find ONE VERSE in which Jesus refers to, or addresses, God the Father as "MY LORD". Have fun with that.

Jesus says, in John 20:17:

Notice that Jesus did NOT say "I ascend unto MY LORD". Jesus refers to God the Father as "MY Father", and as "MY God", and yet, NOWHERE does Jesus EVER refer to God the Father as "MY LORD". Nowhere.

So, again, WHOSE lord would you say God the Father is, N(ew)W(orld)L(iar)?

Jesus is our Lord in the sense that YHWH the Father who is the Sovereign Lord has established Jesus as our Lord, this does not negate the Father as sovereign lord anymore than YHWH establishing David as Kind negated God being sovereign King. Jesus has not always been Lord but was made Lord by God:

(Acts 2:36) "..Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake..”

Zephaniah 1:7 calls YHWH the "Sovereign Lord YHWH", and as we've previously discussed YHWH is the Father "But now, O YHWH, you are our Father" (Isaiah 64:8), therefore the Father is the Sovereign Lord.

The Father is also the one being spoken of in Rev 1:8 where it states "I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says the Lord God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty”. As you can see the "Alpha and Omega" (A&O), the "One who is and who was and who is coming" and the "almighty" are titles given to this one person in v8. We can see Jesus as separate from this one called "One who is and who was and who is coming"by Rev 1:4,5 where it states:

(Revelation 1:4, 5) "..John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ.."

As we can see, the “the One who is and who was and who is coming" in v4 is mentioned as a separate person from Jesus Christ in v5. Therefore, Jesus is not the one being spoken of in Rev 1:8, rather, it is the Father being spoken of and as already seen referred to as the Lord God Almighty. Jesus is never called Lord God or Almighty.

 

[NWL]

Yes, I readily deny the HS is the "one God", I also deny Jesus is called the "one God" or either are YHWH. Show me a verse that states they are either of those ones?

Well, your programmers/handlers from the Watchtower Society say:

So, now you have for yourself yet another insurmountable embarrassment.
You deny that THE Holy Spirit is God, but you affirm that "God is a Spirit". So, according to YOU, you are talking about two different spirits, one of which you call "the holy spirit", the other of which you call "God", yet refuse to call "the holy spirit".

Which of the following two mutually-contradictory propositions is the true one, and which is the false one?

1. The referent of the word 'God' in John 4:24 is a HOLY Spirit.
2. The referent of the word 'God' in John 4:24 is an UNHOLY Spirit.

Which do you say is the TRUE? 1 or 2?
Which do you say is the FALSE? 1 or 2?

This is you blatantly avoiding and deflecting the question by creating a strawman. I've asked you a question and instead of answering you've created an argument that is completely unrelated to the topic.

Answer the question and stop running from it, if you can't answer the question then admit you can't instead of creating strawmans.

I readily deny the HS is the "one God", I also deny Jesus is called the "one God" or either are YHWH, you however claim this is what the bible teaches. Therefore show me a verse that states/expresses they are either of those ones?

 

[NWL]

You didn't like the syllogism I laid out FOR DARTMAN using Dartman's propositions as the premises. Why? Because you did not agree with the proposition of Dartman that constituted its Major Premise. So, now, let's lay out a different syllogism, one using (at least) one of YOUR propositions as the premises:

This syllogism is a valid argument: if the premises be true, the conclusion can't but be true. Now, from your above-quoted statement, the major premise of this syllogism has been derived. What do you say about the minor premise? Is it true, or is it false?

Bear in mind that you have written:

Here, in your rhetorical question, you seem to have already denied the conclusion of the syllogism.

I made it clear that I used the term "false Gods/gods" when referring to people who worked against the one true Gods will in common speech. You pointed out that the term "false Gods/gods" is not found in scripture, which I agree with (although a like phrase of "so-called gods" is used [1 Cor 8:5]). I also made mention that despite myself and others using the phrase that is not used in scripture to refer to beings who are mentioned as gods as false gods, that I would not critise them for innocently using the term, since it does not really do any injustice to scripture.

You then carried on with you argument about the semantics and biblical language of Satan being referred to as "the God/god". Since your argument is based on semantics and language my answer was according to the word definitions and usage laid out in the scriptures and not according to my general speech (written included). Satan is never referred to as a "false God/god" thus I said "Why would I apply the term "false God" to Satan when scripture clearly shows him as a God?".

In answer to your questions of the major and minor premises:

Major Premise: It depends on how we approach it, if you want to be technical and only use biblical language then the answer is no, I do not agree with you premise, since, as you stated the bible uses has the term "false God/god". If we want to use language

Minor Premise: I agree with this premise, Satan is a God/god not working in line with Gods will.

Your conclusion: I would deny because again, the term "false God/god" is not used in scripture. If however we weren't talking so strictly and definitely by using only language the bible uses, then I could agree that Satan is a false God/god, in the sense of being false against God in his endeavors and not reflecting the qualities that God should have.

 

[NWL]

You say, of YOUR words--"Satan is a [sic] rightly a God"--that "these are not my words but that [sic] of the bible". Astounding that you had no qualm with actually claiming that out loud! Well, obviously, they are NOT the words of the Hebrew Old Testament, and they are NOT the words of the Greek New Testament. Let's see, now. I mostly read the KJV, and I can tell you they are NOT the words of the KJV. I don't know about other English translations and pseudo-translations: are they to be found in one (or more) of those volumes? What about your New World Translation? Could you cite a passage, in the NWT, wherein I can read the words "Satan is a [sic] rightly a God"? I looked them up in your "Bible", at 2 Corinthians 4:4, and they ARE NOT THERE. Instead, this is what was written there:

Is there any place in your "Bible" wherein you would say they are found? If so, where?

Is the phrase, "Satan is a [sic] rightly a God", in the Bible? If not, do you believe "Satan is a [sic] rightly a God"? Have you ever used the phrase "Satan is a [sic] rightly a God" before? If you have, then why are you using a phrase not found in the Bible?

Notice that NO TRINITARIAN, EVER, has claimed "The word 'Trinity' is not MY word, it is a word right out of the Bible"!!!

Your argument above is one of deceit. You have written and claim I have stated "Satan is a rightly a God" in such a way to make it out to seem I've expressed the scriptures themselves have the very words "Satan is a rightly a God" written somewhere, I have done no such thing.

99.9% branches of Christianity and scholars of Christianity accept that Satan is being the one spoken of in 2 Cor 4:4, in my 28 years as a Christian yourself, apple7, and one other person I have met are the only people who I have come across who deny that Satan is the person being mentioned. Thus, when I say "Satan is a rightly a God" I am not making a claim that the scriptures literally say "Satan is a rightly a God", but rather that is the conclusion I come to since Satan is the person being spoken of in the verse "the God/god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4).

Again the scriptures attest to Satan being the ruler of the world, 2 Cor 4:4 is not the only place my friend. Would you deny the below scriptures as referring to Satan as they do not mention him by name too?

(John 14:30) "..[Jesus said] I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me.."

(Ephesians 2:2) "..in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.."

(1 John 5:19) "..We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.."

Notice that NO TRINITARIAN, EVER, has claimed "The word 'Trinity' is not MY word, it is a word right out of the Bible"!!!

You are correct, but again where have I claimed the bible states "Satan is a rightly a God"? I haven't! In fact the very quote you claimed I have stated the bible made such a claim I clearly showed that I was not stating the bible literally says the words "Satan is a rightly a God" for you to claim I did.

NWL: "Satan is a rightly a God, these are not my words but that of the bible, 2 Cor 4:4 rightly calls Satan "The God (ho theos) of this world", Thus Satan is a God according to scripture."

It can be clearly seen in the above that I quoted the verse myself with the words "The God (ho theos) of this world", I then attributed this phrase to Satan, I did not say the verse literally mentions Satan.

If this is your best argument against me you might as well give up, as I clearly did not claim what you say I claimed.

Who is "ho theos" referring to in the 2 Cor 4:4 if not Satan?

 

[NWL]

Indeed, I was mistaken, before, in thinking that Paul was referring to Satan by the phrase, "the god of this world".

That's one perk about not being a cult member: I'm free to, as my conscience dictates, change my mind. You should try it! See, you, on the other hand, as a Russellite cultist, have had you're conscience seared, and are at the beck and call of your programmers/handlers of The Watchtower Tract Society. Were they to calculate that it has become necessary to jettison the doctrine that Paul meant Satan by "the god of this world", you would slavishly follow suit with their oracle, and you would stop promulgating that doctrine.

There's a difference when you changed your mind of a belief because you've gained a better overall understanding of a certain teaching from when you changed your mind because you're loosing an argument. If I believed for one second that you changed your mind as you put hours of study into the passage and other related passages and it had nothing to do with the fact your were loosing the argument I would have commended you for making such a change.

But lets see if that is the case, on what merits did you change your mind, please include scriptures when expressing your thoughts. Also, who is 2 Cor 4:4 referring to if not Satan, please include scriptures when expressing your thoughts. If you can't or don't express your thoughts or scriptures then I can only assume you changed your mind as you were simply losing the argument.

Does your acceptance of Satan do something to help you?

Does my acceptance of Satan being referred to "the God/god of this word" help me? Erm yeah, kind of supports the argument I've been making this whole time about other beings referred to as God and also what type of God Jesus is by the term "ho theos" in John 30:28. Kind of a pointless question you've asked.

99% of Christianity, perhaps. In addition to that, I'm now also in disagreement (on yet one more point!) with who knows how many (?) non-Christian, anti-Christian heretics such as yourself!

Well I think if you're the one who's denying what 99% of Christianity understands about the verse then logically that would make you the heretic buddy, that kind of goes without saying.

Now, where (if anywhere) would you say Scripture identifies Satan as the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? (Hint: You automatically fail if, in response to that question, you cite 2 Corinithians 4:4, inasmuch as that's the very text in dispute, here. You'll just be begging (and oh, so penuriously, at that!) the question.)

Somebody/something that is a God/god of something is a ruler of whatever he is God/god of, Satan is talked about as being the ruler of the world (see below scriptures). Since 2 Cor 4:4 mentions the God/god in the verse "has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ... might not shine through" it would be illogical to presume that the God/god mentioned is YHWH, since YHWH wouldn't blind the eyes of anyone but rather wants them to be un-blinded. Since other scriptures attests Satan to being the "ruler of the world" and "the God/god" mentioned in 2 Cor 4:4 was the God/god of "the world" logic and reason should tell you the identity of the God/god in 2 Cor 4:4 is Satan, if its not then we have two Evil entities who are agaisnt Almighty God, one who is the "ruler" of the world and one who is the "God/god" of the world. Since scripture makes no mention of a direct rival to God other than Satan it makes no sense other than to conclude that it is him being spoken of in 2 Cor 4:4. Please show me where my reasoning errors for you to claim otherwise.

(John 14:30) "..[Jesus said] I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me.."

(Ephesians 2:2) "..in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.."

(1 John 5:19) "..We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.."

And, please tell me: In Psalm 8:5, what is the Hebrew word rendered as "Angels" in your New World Translation? Psalm 8:5 NWT: [You made him a little lower than godlike ones...]

The Hebrew word used in Psalm 8:5 "mê’ĕlōhîm". There are two other passages in the Hebrew scriptures where it uses exactly the same word mê’ĕlōhîm and the translation is "God". According to both the NAS and STRONGS concordance (strongs #430) the definition of the word is: God, god.

(2 Chronicles 35:21) "..So he sent messengers to him, saying: “What does this have to do with you, O king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but my fight is against another house, and God/mê’ĕlōhîm says that I should hurry. For your own sake, refrain from opposing God, who is with me, or he will bring you to ruin..”

(Job 32:2) "..But E·liʹhu the son of Barʹa·chel the Buzʹite of the family of Ram had become very angry. His anger blazed against Job for trying to prove himself right rather than God/mê’ĕlōhîm.."

Therefore, when translators translate Psalms 8:5 knowing the verse isn't talking about God but his created spirit sons substitute the word "God" for different words, these vary from translation to translation, they include the following: God, Gods, gods, Angels, godlike ones, heavenly beings.

What's your point? Silence is golden.

scriptures identifies many others as Gods/gods, namely... divinely appointed Men (Psalms 82:1-5), even ones belly can be referred to a God/god (Philippians 3:19) in the right circumstance.

[1]Then why don't you say that "divinely appointed Men" are the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? [2]Why don't you say that "ones [sic] belly" is the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? [3] Why don't you say that Moses is the referent of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? Why do you choose Satan, rather than any of these other things?

1. Because the judges of Israel are never referred to as the ruler of the world or having the authority of the worlds air according to scripture, Satan is however (John 14:30, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 5:19). Since Angels are referred to as God/gods, demons are referred to as Gods/gods (Exodus 12:12), then it is not a stretch to claim that the "God/god" of the world in 2 Cor 4:4 is Satan, especially when Scripture already has Satan as "the ruler of the world".

2.Because the man's belly is never referred to as the ruler of the world or having the authority of the worlds air according to scripture, Satan is however (John 14:30, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 5:19).

3.Because the Moses is never referred to as the ruler of the world or having the authority of the worlds air according to scripture, Satan is however (John 14:30, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 5:19).

You can't tell that there is a difference between Thomas's phrase, ὁ θεός μου ("the god of me"), in John 20:28, and Paul's phrase, ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ("the god of the world this"), in 2 Corinthians 4:4, and that the one phrase is not the other?

I can see a difference to whats said after both the usages of "the God/god" (ho thoes), yes. What does this prove?

I'm extremely interested in hearing you try to quote me from wherever it is you think I stated that the 'g' of 'god', in Paul's phrase, "tHe GoD oF tHiS wOrLd", MUST be not capitalized. Have fun.

Buddy, if you're not arguing or claiming you were arguing there should be a difference in capitalization of the two usages of "ho theos" in 2 Cor 4:4 compared to John 2:28 then cool, if have no issue with that, makes my life all the more easier.

I can't correct you. I can only tell you that you're wrong in that assumption.

Why beat around the bush, just come out already and tell us who you this it's speaking about in 2 Cor 4:4 along with your reasoning as to why.

 

[7djengo7]

Jesus is our Lord in the sense that YHWH the Father who is the Sovereign Lord has established Jesus as our Lord, this does not negate the Father as sovereign lord anymore than YHWH establishing David as Kind negated God being sovereign King.

Here are some of the questions that you have, thus far, stonewalled against:

• WHOSE LORD would you say God the Father is?
• Is God the Father the Apostle Paul's Lord? Yes or No?
• Is God the Father YOUR LORD? Yes or No?
• Where, in Scripture, does Jesus refer to, or address God the Father as "MY LORD"?

Why can't you answer them, N(ew)W(orld)L(iar)?

It's amusing that you refuse to call God the Father "my Lord". Why? Because you are a God-hater: you hate God the Father, you hate God the Son, and you hate God the Holy Spirit.

Thomas called Jesus Christ "my Lord AND my God". Why do you refuse to call Jesus Christ "my Lord AND my God"? Because you despise God the Son.

And, why do you refuse to call God the Father "my Lord AND my God"?
Because you despise God the Father.

 

[7djengo7]

This is you blatantly avoiding and deflecting the question by creating a strawman. I've asked you a question and instead of answering you've created an argument that is completely unrelated to the topic.

Answer the question and stop running from it, if you can't answer the question then admit you can't instead of creating strawmans.

I readily deny the HS is the "one God", I also deny Jesus is called the "one God" or either are YHWH, you however claim this is what the bible teaches. Therefore show me a verse that states/expresses they are either of those ones?

Notice, N(ew)W(orld)L(iar), that you are forced to stonewall against the questions I just asked you:

Which of the following two mutually-contradictory propositions is the true one, and which is the false one?

1. The referent of the word 'God' in John 4:24 is a HOLY Spirit.
2. The referent of the word 'God' in John 4:24 is an UNHOLY Spirit.

Which proposition is the TRUE one? 1 or 2?
Which proposition is the FALSE one? 1 or 2?

Hmmm. Just why, oh why, can't you answer these?

John 4:24 teaches that the Holy Spirit is YHWH.
Romans 8:11 teaches that the Holy Spirit is YHWH.

I just showed you two verses that teach that the Holy Spirit is YHWH.
Now, hypocrite, YOU just try to show ME a verse that teaches that the Holy Spirit is NOT YHWH. You'll have as much fun with THAT as you will in your foredoomed, pathetic attempt at trying to do damage control after you deny that John 4:24 and Romans 8:11 teach that the Holy Spirit is YHWH.

 

[7djengo7]

who is 2 Cor 4:4 referring to if not Satan

Why do you assume that, in 2 Corinthians 4:4, by the phrase "the god of this world", Paul is referring to a person?

tell us who you this it's speaking about in 2 Cor 4:4 along with your reasoning as to why.

Why do you assume that, in 2 Corinthians 4:4, by the phrase "the god of this world", Paul is referring to a person?