Is this proof that the Trinitarians have no argument?

Is this proof that the Trinitarians have no argument?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Just look at trinitarians on this board whenever I prove to them that Jehovah is one and Jesus is not Almighty God. They get mad and insult me, thinking defending their polytheistic belief will get them salvation

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >JWgay
      I'm the OP and I'm not here to start another thread continuing your weeks-long spergout, but I wanted to talk about the specifics of the whole thing.

      Regardless of your literal cult, I think most Christians in any case belief some form - one way or another - of Arianism. At least, I would imagine if they were to profess their belief on Jesus and the Father's relationship, Athanasius would probably call them an Arian.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Cults are regarded as encouraging their adherents to live in groups apart from the rest of society. Many also think of cults as being secretive about their activities or having something to hide.

        In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses live and work in the midst of other people. They have nothing to hide. In fact, they desire to tell anyone who is willing to listen about everything that they believe.

        Cults members are also associated with following living human leaders.

        Yet Jehovah's Witnesses do not look to any human, but rather to Jesus Christ, as their leader, as their leader. Jehovah’s Witnesses follow what Jesus taught and put it into practice. That is what it means to be a Christian. Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to adhere strictly to the precepts established by the first Christians.

        Jehovah's Witnesses base all of their beliefs, their standards for conduct, and organizational procedures on the Bible. Their worship is a way of life, not a ritual devotion

        Leaders of cults have been known to ask for money from their followers. Even what many consider to be 'mainstream' religions encourage their members to give them money through tithes, collection plates, or other means.

        However, the work of Jehovah's Witnesses is primarily financed through anonymous, voluntary contributions, as was true with the early Christians. (2 Cor. 8:12; 9:7) No collections are ever taken at their meetings and they do not beg for money from the public. Any donations from interested persons are used to further the worldwide work of Bible education conducted by the Witnesses.

        Hence we don't fit the definition of a cult. Please apologize

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Are you the same JWgay that's the woman? If so, you are in desperate need of a fricking. Get off IQfy, you miserable spinster.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Cults are regarded as encouraging their adherents to live in groups apart from the rest of society
          JW's do this
          >Jehovah's Witnesses live and work in the midst of other people. They have nothing to hide. In fact, they desire to tell anyone who is willing to listen about everything that they believe.
          Most other cults do this as well

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >JW's do this

            I am literally at work, thus I am not living "in a group apart from society"

            >Most other cults do this as well

            JWs don't fit the definition of cult

            I am waiting for your apology please

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I am literally at work, thus I am not living "in a group apart from society"
            Cults do not need to be completely divorced from society in order to encourage people to live apart from the rest of society. Most obviously the shunning policy, Bethel, discouraging interaction with non JW's and so on.
            >JWs don't fit the definition of cult
            They fit your definition.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Most obviously the shunning policy,

            You are changing the subject. If a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she WILL be shunned !

            The Bible clearly states:
            “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”—1 Corinthians 5:13.

            >Bethel, discouraging interaction with non JW's and so on.

            Again changing the subject for the third time. You went from "not living within society" to "shunning wicked people" to "interracting with non-JWs"

            These are three different topics.

            God’s Word makes it clear that our friendships have an influence on useither for good or for bad

            Proverbs 13:20 tells us:
            “The one walking with the wise will become wise, but the one who has dealings with the stupid will fare badly.”

            We obviously prefer to spend time with worshippers of the True God and not people who have no respect for spiritual matters

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >They fit your definition.

            As demonstrated they don't, so please apologize for hurting my feelings

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Athanasius was not a modalist.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        And btw, calling it "arianism" just vecause we believe Jesus is subject to Jehovah makes no sense at all.

        The apostles believed Jesus was a servant of God, yet I don't see you call them 'arians'. Arius lived centuries after the apostles.

        That's funny, I seem to remember demonstrating the deity of Christ to you from Philippians 2 and Hebrews 1 without any response

        What verses did you quote ?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Philippians 2:5-11 and Hebrews 1:1-14

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Philippians 2:5-11

            ??

            You are proving my point ! “did not regard equality with God as something to be seized (grasped).”

            Paul here encourages the Philippians to cultivate an outstanding attitude like that of Jesus. At Philippians 2:3, Paul tells them: “With humility consider others superior to you.” In verse 5, he continues: “Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus.”

            Jesus, who considered GOD to be SUPERIOR, never ‘grasped for equality with God.’

            Instead, he “humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death.” (Phillipians 2:8; John 5:30; 14:28; 1Corinthians 15:24-28)

            Jesus’ view was not like that of the Devil, who urged Eve to make herself like God, to be equal to Him. (Genesis 3:5)

            Jesus perfectly exemplified Paul’s point here—namely, the importance of humility and obedience to the Creator, Jehovah GGod !

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >“did not regard equality with God as something to be seized (grasped).
            You are correct to note the distranslation of the NWT at this point, because the correct rendering of the word would be 'grasped' or 'held', it literally describes the act of holding something gainfully and nothing more, grammatically it does not answer the question of whether He possessed this equality and let go of it or whether He did not and dared not to take it. The context, however, leaves no doubt. Remember that the purpose of the passage is not to tell us who Jesus is per se, but is giving an example of humility, which is Paul's purpose in this chapter as a whole. Would it be a remarkable example of humility for Michael the archangel to not rebel against God and not attempt to seize His throne for himself? Surely not, but it is remarkable for God the Son to "empty Himself", that is, make Himself nothing. Furthermore this passage opens by declaring that Christ "existed in the form of God", which is a description of the equality He possessed with God that is immediately referenced thereafter. It is said that He made Himself nothing by "taking on the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of men". If He were a mere angel, would He have not already been a servant? "Taking on the form of a servant" means becoming a creature because everything which is created is rightfully God's servant, and this is defined explicitly by the text as the nature of this "taking on the form of a servant" (contrasted with "the form of God") consists in "being born in the likeness of men".

            (cont.)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Surely not, but it is remarkable for God the Son

            The expression "God the son" is not found in the Bible.

            >Furthermore this passage opens by declaring that Christ "existed in the form of God", which is a description of the equality He possessed with God

            That is incorrect. The Greek expression rendered “form” (mor·pheʹ) basically refers to “nature; appearance; shape; likeness.”

            Jesus was a SPIRIT person just as “God is a SPIRIT.” (Joh 4:24)

            The same Greek term is used of Jesus’ taking “a slave’s form” when he “became flesh,” or became a human.—Joh 1:14; Php 2:7.

            >If He were a mere angel, would He have not already been a servant? "Taking on the form of a servant" means becoming a creature because everything which is created is rightfully God's servant, and this is defined explicitly by the text as the nature of this "taking on the form of a servant" (contrasted with "the form of God") consists in "being born in the likeness of men".

            The point Paul is making is that unlike angels who at times clothed themselves with fleshly bodies in order to appear to humans, Jesus completely relinquished his spirit body along with the glory and privileges associated with it.

            No human has ever sacrificed anything that comes close to what Jesus gave up in order to please God.

            Matthew 20:28:
            "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

            The point is not that Jesus considered God superior to Himself, but that He treated creatures (who are far below Himself) as superior demonstrated in the fact that He not only became human but for their sakes became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Now those words, "the cross death", refer to something which the ancient Romans counted as the single most horrific way to die. A Roman citizen could not be crucified, it was too horrible for the empire to tolerate it. Yet the love of Jehovah God was so great that He laid aside His glory and became a man to suffer that death for their sakes.
            >Jesus’ view was not like that of the Devil
            And that is humility to you? Are you being humble right now by not trying to steal God's throne?
            [...]
            >literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”
            Your kingdom interlinear is not the autographs written by the hands of the apostles themselves, but you are nonetheless more or less correct. It's also completely irrelevant, because "toward but the Son" as in, this is said to the Son in contrast with what was just said to the angels. The quotation is from Psalm 45 in any case.

            >And that is humility to you? Are you being humble right now by not trying to steal God's throne?

            Jesus' humility is in complete opposition to Satan. Feelings of pride and rivalry toward God grew within this spirit creature. He wanted others to worship him. When God’s firstborn Son, Jesus, was on the earth, Satan even attempted to get Jesus to “do an act of worship” to him.—Matthew 4:9. Whereas, Jesus " did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς ] equality with God" - NEB.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The expression "God the son" is not found in the Bible.
            Nor are any of the words we are using now. It is impossible to exposit the scripture without using extra biblical language, and there is nothing wrong with using unbiblical words that describe biblical concepts, such as "God the Son".
            >The Greek expression rendered “form” (mor·pheʹ) basically refers to “nature; appearance; shape; likeness.”
            Yes. And? Why do you believe you have made a point just now? This semantic domain is not unlike that of the English word 'form', and your "point" is especially irrelevant given that the exact same Greek word is used in the following verse when it says He took on "the form of a servant"; if your "point" was some attempt to say that this means Jesus is fundamentally ontologically different from God and merely "like" Him in some other way, does that mean that Jesus was also not a servant, but merely somehow "similar" to a servant while being fundamentally different? Obviously not. Of those meanings the correct one here is clearly nature, as His existence in the form of God means that as the Nicene creed put it He and the Father are "of the same substance", just He was of the same substance as a servant (which here means a creature).

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Nor are any of the words we are using now. It is impossible to exposit the scripture without using extra biblical language,

            The problem is that you are using a non-biblical ewpression to further your agenda concerning the trinity. However, the Bible never used this expression, it calls Jesus the son of God. Not "God the son", because Jesus is NOT part of a trinity !

            >Yes. And? Why do you believe you have made a point just now?

            Yes, because your argument was that Jesus ewisted in the form of God, meaning equality with God. I demonstrated that Jesus is a spirit, and as a spirit he is of the same nature as God, who is also a spirit. Angels are also spirit, yet I don't see you calling them Almighty God as well

            >The same Greek term is used of Jesus’ taking “a slave’s form” when he “became flesh,” or became a human.
            Thank you for making my point. You see how this teaches His absolute divinity? If He was an angel, He would have already existed in "a slave's form", or was Michael the archangel not God's servant?
            >The point Paul is making is that unlike angels who at times clothed themselves with fleshly bodies in order to appear to humans, Jesus completely relinquished his spirit body along with the glory and privileges associated with it.
            Ignoring the fact that there is no reference to angels, angels becoming enfleshened, or "spirit bodies" anywhere near this text (this is just the straight insertion of Watchtower theology into a text which knows nothing of it), how would this connect His humility to equality with God?
            >Jesus' humility is in complete opposition to Satan
            There is no reference to Satan in Philippians 2:5-11. It is not facetious to note this fact because you are inserting Satan into this text and making him central to your interpretation. You ought to ask yourself, are your beliefs being derived from the text, or imposed on the text? I can just let the text speak.

            >Thank you for making my point. You see how this teaches His absolute divinity? If He was an angel, He would have already existed in "a slave's form", or was Michael the archangel not God's servant?

            You misunderstand the verse. When Jesus became a human, he became servant of MEN.

            >Ignoring the fact that there is no reference to angels, angels becoming enfleshened, or "spirit bodies" anywhere near this text (this is just the straight insertion of Watchtower theology into a text which knows nothing of it), how would this connect His humility to equality with God?

            I thought it was clear. Paul emphasizes lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn't destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn't robbery for him to be equal with the Most High !

            Jesus regards God as superior to himself and won't give even a moment's thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further

            And what's with your hate boner against the "Watchtower" when I'm only using logic ?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem is that you are using a non-biblical ewpression to further your agenda concerning the trinity
            I think we are seeing that it could hardly be more biblical.
            >Yes, because your argument was that Jesus ewisted in the form of God, meaning equality with God.
            No, that was Paul's argument, that's what the text says.
            >I demonstrated that Jesus is a spirit, and as a spirit he is of the same nature as God, who is also a spirit. Angels are also spirit, yet I don't see you calling them Almighty God as well
            That would be because angels do not exist in the form of God nor do they share His nature. Your religion might have many gods and many lords but in the Christian religion there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.
            >When Jesus became a human, he became servant of MEN.
            This interpretation is not tolerated by the text. Firstly the form of a servant is contrasted with the form of God, "but He took on the form of a servant". Paul gives taking on the form of a servant as the opposite of holding on to equality with God. The process of this transition is described as "emptying Himself", which is to say reducing Himself to nothing, however the transition from the life of a carpenter to the ministry of the Messiah is hardly one which decreases grandeur. Finally I repeat that Paul defines taking on the form of a servant as "being born in the likeness of men".

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I think we are seeing that it could hardly be more biblical.

            It IS unbiblical. John the Baptist did not call Jesus “God the Son” but “the Son of God.” Jesus’ disciples did not say, “You are God the Son,” but, “You are really God’s Son.” There is a GREAT DIFFERENCE between these statements.—John 1:34; Matthew 14:33

            >That would be because angels do not exist in the form of God nor do they share His nature.

            Yes it absolutely is. Paul tells us that Jesus was in the form of God. That is, he was a spirit person as are all heavenly persons. The Father is a spirit person (John 4:23, 24 KJV, ASV); the angels are spirit persons (Heb. 1:7 KJV - also see Aid book, p. 1542 - and pp. 39 and 593 in the trinitarian Today's Dictionary of the Bible); men resurrected to heaven become spirit persons (Phil. 3:20, 21; 1 Cor. 15:44-53); and Jesus is (and was in the beginning also) a spirit person (1 Pet. 3:18, 1 Cor. 15:45).

            >Your religion might have many gods and many lords but in the Christian religion there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

            Yes, one God THE FATHER. Jesus is not called God.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >This interpretation is not tolerated by the text.

            You are wrong once again. This scripture contrasts Jesus as, first, being in "form of god" (morphe theou) and, then, (2:7) being in "form of slave" (morphen doulou). Both of these phrases use the word "form" followed by an anarthrous genitive noun. This means that we are being given a contrast of two grammatical parallels.

            If we should decide to translate the second half of this parallel as "form of a slave," then there can be no honest objection on grammatical grounds for translating the first part of this parallel as "form of a god." In fact it would seem more appropriate to translate it this way instead of "form of [the] God."

            That means it would certainly not be improper to interpret Phil. 2:6, 7 as "although he was existing in the form of one in a high position of mightiness and/or authority (as, in a lower sense, the position of angels, and even certain Israelite judges and kings, qualified them to be called `gods' occasionally in the inspired scriptures), he never even gave a thought about an attempt to seize equality with God, but instead, he gave up that exalted position he already had and took on the form of one in a lowly position."

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Paul emphasizes lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn't destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn't robbery for him to be equal with the Most High !
            This is clearly another premade response this time attacking the KJV's rendering of the verse. It fails to address my point, and it fails to answer my challenge. I will repeat: if Jesus making Himself nothing means that He ceased to be a mere angel what would that have to do with equality with God? Are angels equal with God?
            >And what's with your hate boner against the "Watchtower" when I'm only using logic ?
            It has been clearly demonstrated to you now that the Watchtower Society has lied to you. They have given you a false Jesus and with it a false gospel which puts them under the anathema of God in Galatians 1:8-9. I implore you to abandon their false religion and come to faith in the only true Jesus, for all who do so are part of a great crowd no longer but the anointed class whom He welcomes as His beloved sons and daughters. We implore you, be reconciled to God.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >This is clearly another premade response this time attacking the KJV's rendering of the verse.

            Whether KJV or another translations doesn't matter, the meaning remains the same.

            The New Testament in an Improved Version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome’s new translation published in 1808 reads: “For let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus also: who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God.”

            The Emphasised Bible by J. Rotherham reads: “The same thing esteem in yourselves which also in Christ Jesus ye esteem, who in form of God subsisting, not a thing to be seized accounted the being equal with God.”

            The Riverside New Testament translated by William G. Ballantine, D.D., reads: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not think that equality with God was some thing to be grasped.”

            Note that NONE of these translations that are here quoted says that Jesus possessed equality with God in heaven before becoming a man. He did not imitate the Devil’s example, who tried to make himself like God, to be equal with God.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > if Jesus making Himself nothing means that He ceased to be a mere angel what would that have to do with equality with God?

            Again, “he emptied himself” of his previous spiritual existence and became a man, “lower than angels,” so as to offer himself as “a corresponding ransom for all.” (Philippians 2:7, 8; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:6)

            Although “a god,” Jesus “did not count equality with God [Jehovah] a thing to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:6, RS, both editions) His submission to Jehovah is clear, now and in the future. (1 Corinthians 15:27, 28) He willingly recognized his Father’s superiority. (John 14:28; compare 1 Corinthians 11:3.)

            >Are angels equal with God?

            Satan wanted to be worshipped as God, unlike Jesus.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It has been clearly demonstrated to you now that the Watchtower Society has lied to you.

            The Jesus I believe in is the one of the Holy Scriptures, while you believe in the Jesus of thr council of Nicea.

            Anyone here can take a look of these councils and see how UNCHRISTIAN these were.

            When Constantine became sole ruler of the Roman Empire, professed Christians were divided over the relationship between God and Christ.

            Was Jesus God ?

            Or was he created by God ?

            To settle the matter, Constantine summoned church leaders to Nicaea, not because he sought religious truth, but because he did not want religion to divide his empire.

            Constantine asked the bishops, who may have numbered into the hundreds, to come to a unanimous accord, but his request was in vain. He then proposed that the council adopt the ambiguous notion that Jesus was “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father. This unbiblical Greek philosophical term laid the foundation for the Trinity doctrine as later set forth in the church creeds.

            by the end of the 4th century, the Trinity had essentially taken the form it has today, including the so-called third part of the godhead, the holy spirit.

            “In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church.

            You believe in a false Jesus, one that has been made equal to God despite Paul saying the complete opposite.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Muh Nicaea
            Nicaea was literally called as a REACTION to the heresy of denying Christs divinity.
            And dont let us get started how your 120 year old cult came into existence lmao.
            Schism after Schism, failed prediction after failed prediction then rationalised with ad-hoc explanations.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Nicaea was literally called as a REACTION to the heresy of denying Christs divinity.

            It was not until over 300 years after the death of Jesus that the trinity concept was fully developed, refined, and officially and finally accepted by Christendom through a decree by the Church at Rome.

            "Speculative thought began to analyze the divine nature until in the 4th century an elaborate theory of a threefoldness in God appears. In this Nicene or Athanasian form of thought God is said to consist of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all equally eternal, powerful and glorious." - Encyclopedia Americana, 1944, v. 6, p. 619, "Christianity".

            finally, by the end of the 4th century A.D., the trinity idea had been fully developed. The Roman Church had officially decreed the following points as being necessary for all Christians to believe:

            There are said to be three divine persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - in the Godhead.

            (1) Each of these separate persons is said to be eternal, none coming before or after the other in time.
            (2) Each is said to be almighty, with none greater or lesser than the other.
            (3) Each is said to be omniscient, knowing all things.
            (4) Each is said to be true God.
            (5) However, it is said that there are not three Gods but only one God.

            But we should understand that in the more than 2,000 years from Abraham to the death of the last Apostle (John), Judaeo-Christianity had only ONE God, JEHOVAH ("YHWH"), THE FATHER ALONE. (Cf. Ps. 83:18, KJV, ASV; Is. 63:16, ASV; and John 17:1, 3 - Jer.10:10, ASV).

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >
            It was not until over 300 years after the death of Jesus that the trinity concept was fully developed, refined, and officially and finally accepted by Christendom through a decree by the Church at Rome.

            It took your cult 1900 years in America.

            Not gonna read your copy-paste posts btw.
            Posting them numerous times in numerous thread counts as spamming btw.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It took your cult 1900 years in America

            In his illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jesus foretold a great rebellion (apostasy) against true Christianity. (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) For a long period of time, true Christians and false Christians would be indistinguishable. Just as Jesus foretold, the apostasy flourished after the apostles died. (Acts 20:29, 30)

            Jesus also predicted that the distinction between true and false Christianity would eventually become clear. This has happened in our time, during the “conclusion of a system of things.”—Matthew 13:30, 39.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The same Greek term is used of Jesus’ taking “a slave’s form” when he “became flesh,” or became a human.
            Thank you for making my point. You see how this teaches His absolute divinity? If He was an angel, He would have already existed in "a slave's form", or was Michael the archangel not God's servant?
            >The point Paul is making is that unlike angels who at times clothed themselves with fleshly bodies in order to appear to humans, Jesus completely relinquished his spirit body along with the glory and privileges associated with it.
            Ignoring the fact that there is no reference to angels, angels becoming enfleshened, or "spirit bodies" anywhere near this text (this is just the straight insertion of Watchtower theology into a text which knows nothing of it), how would this connect His humility to equality with God?
            >Jesus' humility is in complete opposition to Satan
            There is no reference to Satan in Philippians 2:5-11. It is not facetious to note this fact because you are inserting Satan into this text and making him central to your interpretation. You ought to ask yourself, are your beliefs being derived from the text, or imposed on the text? I can just let the text speak.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no reference to Satan in Philippians 2:5-11.
            I am making a connection between the two, the Bible is one big book. We are supposed to interpret the verses in light of other verses, you don't just cherrypick a verse and deduce its meaning on its own.

            >respected trinitarian Bible scholar
            You are getting these quotes from the Watchtower Society which is infamous for quoting scholars out of context to their own advantage. Those same scholars often publicly renounce the Watchtower's discitation of their words, put their own words back into context and explain what they actually meant. This is obvious in this case, given you call him a Trinitarian, and the interpretation you imply he had is mutually exclusive with the doctrine of the Trinity. It is also *flatly* irrelevant since the opinion or statement of no man will change what the text actually says.
            [...]
            >You are right, I am not a Greek expert, so let's see what Greek experts says.
            This is more examples of the disquotation of scholars I just mentioned but I want you and everyone else reading this to notice the blindness inflicted by devotion to human traditions, because I did not actually cite John 1:1 here (though do not think that means I cede it to you), yet merely seeing it referenced in any context caused you to reflexively repeat the same response which I am sure you have made many times, and in so doing demonstrated my actual point, which is that the construction of 'ho theos', which is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-9, refers to Jehovah God.

            >You are getting these quotes from the Watchtower Society which is infamous for quoting scholars out of context to their own advantage.

            I think you are throwing baseless accusations in an attempt to ignore the argument.

            Many scholars agree about this fact.

            "Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.”
            — William Barclay

            “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”
            — James Allen Hewett

            > I did not actually cite John 1:1 here (though do not think that means I cede it to you)

            You were making a point about John 1:1c, and I responded to you. Don't flee from what you said please.

            While we are on the sibject of John 1:1, here are some more accurate translations:

            “In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”—The Bible—An American Translation, 1935, by J.M.P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

            “The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”—The Bible—Containing the Old and New Testaments, 1950, by James Moffatt.

            “The Word was in the beginning, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.”—The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808, edited by Thomas Belsham, based on a New Testament translation by William Newcome.

            “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine.”—The Authentic New Testament, 1958, by Hugh J. Schonfield.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I am making a connection between the two
            I know. Paul doesn't.
            >We are supposed to interpret the verses in light of other verses, you don't just cherrypick a verse and deduce its meaning on its own.
            You also don't show disrespect for the author by jumping all over the bible looking for a crowbar to cram your unbiblical beliefs into their words with instead of walking through the text they actually wrote.

            > 'ho theos', which is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-9, refers to Jehovah God.

            Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite king, it says:

            “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” - RSV.

            Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, HIS God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows !

            Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God !

            [...]
            >I consider that unlikely given your point was a premade response to an argument which I did not make which did not respond to the argument I actually made.

            You spoke of the divinity of Christ. Yes I agree, I do believe Jesus is divine. That's what John 1:1 says. But I don't believe Jesus is Almighty God.

            “My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28.

            “I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.

            “To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.

            “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.

            “These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.”—Revelation 3:14.

            > Jehovah is a name which is not transferred to creatures, yet it is applied to Jesus in this scripture.

            That is not what Hebrews says at all.

            the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:

            “The Hebrew king was called ... ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient
            pagans, but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”

            According to your logic, that would make Solomon God.

            >In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite king, it says
            It also talks about his lovely bride, so I guess Jesus is just an earthly king on his wedding day, right? Or maybe the author is making a larger application.
            >Context
            The context of Hebrews 1:8-9 is the superiority of Jesus to the angels.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You also don't show disrespect for the author by jumping all over the bible looking for a crowbar to cram your unbiblical beliefs into their words with instead of walking through the text they actually wrote.

            Everything I believe is found in the Bible. And do you know what the Bibel says ?

            ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος....

            "Who, being [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God [theou], thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal [ison] with God. But ... took upon him the form [morphe] of a servant, and was made in the likeness [homoiomati] of men: And being found in fashion [schemati] as a man...." - Phil. 2:6-8, KJV.

            "Who, although He existed [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God [theou], did not regard equality [ison] with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos], but emptied Himself, taking the form [morphe] of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness [homoiomati] of men. And being found in appearance [schemati] as a man...." - Phil. 2:6-8, NASB.

            All the real evidence just shows just that Phil. 2:6 is, in reality, proof that Jesus has never been equally God with the Father !

            >The context of Hebrews 1:8-9 is the superiority of Jesus to the angels.

            And his submission to his God.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The point is not that Jesus considered God superior to Himself, but that He treated creatures (who are far below Himself) as superior demonstrated in the fact that He not only became human but for their sakes became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Now those words, "the cross death", refer to something which the ancient Romans counted as the single most horrific way to die. A Roman citizen could not be crucified, it was too horrible for the empire to tolerate it. Yet the love of Jehovah God was so great that He laid aside His glory and became a man to suffer that death for their sakes.
            >Jesus’ view was not like that of the Devil
            And that is humility to you? Are you being humble right now by not trying to steal God's throne?

            >Hebrews 1:1-14

            literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”

            No one should deny that the title theos (NT Greek word meaning “God,” “god,” “mighty one,” “divine,” etc.) can be applied to Jesus, just as it was applied in the scriptures to angels, judges of Israel, Moses, and (according to some trinitarian authorities) even the kings of Israel.

            But theos is NEVER applied to Jesus with the most high sense that is given only to the Almighty, Most High, only true God !!!

            So it was used at Hebrews 1:8 in its positive secondary sense:
            “Your throne, o mighty one [theos], is ...”. This seems even more probable when we remember that Paul is really quoting from Psalm 45:6.

            Psalm 45 is celebrating an Israelite king’s marriage, and the psalmist applies the words of Psalm 45:6, 7 literally to an ancient Israelite king. In fact, the trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Psalm 45:1, “Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.”

            So, according to this trinitarian Bible, the words of Psalm 45:6, although figuratively referring to Jesus, were literally applied to an ancient ISRAELITE KING

            Do you believe that king Solomon was God ?

            >literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”
            Your kingdom interlinear is not the autographs written by the hands of the apostles themselves, but you are nonetheless more or less correct. It's also completely irrelevant, because "toward but the Son" as in, this is said to the Son in contrast with what was just said to the angels. The quotation is from Psalm 45 in any case.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It's also completely irrelevant, because "toward but the Son" as in, this is said to the Son in contrast with what was just said to the angels.

            It is relevant.

            respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, who wrote: “The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son.” - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.

            And, again, the trinitarian The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the israeli expectation was that the Christ was “a pre-existent, heavenly ANGELIC being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56].” - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >respected trinitarian Bible scholar
            You are getting these quotes from the Watchtower Society which is infamous for quoting scholars out of context to their own advantage. Those same scholars often publicly renounce the Watchtower's discitation of their words, put their own words back into context and explain what they actually meant. This is obvious in this case, given you call him a Trinitarian, and the interpretation you imply he had is mutually exclusive with the doctrine of the Trinity. It is also *flatly* irrelevant since the opinion or statement of no man will change what the text actually says.

            >I understand you know absolutely nothing about Greek, but the word as it appears here is "ho theos" ("the God") which is the form that specifically refers to the only true God as opposed to any other meaning. In fact this word "ho" is the very same article which you folks make such a fuss over being absent in John 1:1c. The use of this article in relation to theos is equivalent to the use of a capital G in English.

            You are right, I am not a Greek expert, so let's see what Greek experts says.

            While many Bible translators render the verse to say that the word is God, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different.

            In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant.

            For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” (The Translator’s New Testament, page 451.)

            Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.

            Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.

            >You are right, I am not a Greek expert, so let's see what Greek experts says.
            This is more examples of the disquotation of scholars I just mentioned but I want you and everyone else reading this to notice the blindness inflicted by devotion to human traditions, because I did not actually cite John 1:1 here (though do not think that means I cede it to you), yet merely seeing it referenced in any context caused you to reflexively repeat the same response which I am sure you have made many times, and in so doing demonstrated my actual point, which is that the construction of 'ho theos', which is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-9, refers to Jehovah God.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > 'ho theos', which is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-9, refers to Jehovah God.

            Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite king, it says:

            “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” - RSV.

            Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, HIS God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows !

            Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God !

            >I believe you are the one missing my point.
            I consider that unlikely given your point was a premade response to an argument which I did not make which did not respond to the argument I actually made. However, the point which you missed that I was referring to was not mine, but the apostle's.
            >Jehovah has never given this title to anyone
            I request that you please go back and read my actual point, and then read Hebrews 1, and then read Psalm 102, because that was in fact my entire point. Jehovah is a name which is not transferred to creatures, yet it is applied to Jesus in this scripture.

            >I consider that unlikely given your point was a premade response to an argument which I did not make which did not respond to the argument I actually made.

            You spoke of the divinity of Christ. Yes I agree, I do believe Jesus is divine. That's what John 1:1 says. But I don't believe Jesus is Almighty God.

            “My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28.

            “I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.

            “To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.

            “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.

            “These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.”—Revelation 3:14.

            > Jehovah is a name which is not transferred to creatures, yet it is applied to Jesus in this scripture.

            That is not what Hebrews says at all.

            the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:

            “The Hebrew king was called ... ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient
            pagans, but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”

            According to your logic, that would make Solomon God.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes I agree, I do believe Jesus is divine. That's what John 1:1 says. But I don't believe Jesus is Almighty God.
            Then you have a belief system which is fundamentally irreconcilable with the metanarratives of the holy bible. For there is but one God, and all others are lies. They are by nature not gods, and of them He demands "From whom has He taken counsel, and who has made Him understand?" And to them He says "Explain to us the former things that we may understand and know their purpose, or declare to us the future things so we may know what is to come, do good or evil that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold you are nothing, and your works are less than nothing, an abomination is he who chooses you."
            >That is not what Hebrews says at all.
            Again, I was *not* taking about verses 8 and 9 but 10-12, which is from Psalm 102. I pray you see how self-deceived you are and that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes.

            The worship is directed to God

            Amen, because the Lord Jesus is God in the flesh.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Then you have a belief system which is fundamentally irreconcilable with the metanarratives of the holy bible.

            You don't understand what I am saying.

            the way you use the word 'god' isn't the same in the Bible, the Bible can also use god to refer to humans (John 10:34,35), false deities (Exodus 12:12), angels (Psalms 8:5) and even Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4)

            The Bible refers to Jesus as a god in John 1:1, but he is a god compared to humans, not because he is Almighty God himself.

            Angels are also gods compared to humans for example, that is why they are called as such

            However there is no one else like God and Jehovah God alone is the Almighty (Psalms 83:18) and no one can reach his divinity as he is far above anything in existence, only He is Divine in the Supreme sense !

            >For there is but one God, and all others are lies.

            >Again, I was *not* taking about verses 8 and 9 but 10-12, which is from Psalm 102.

            And again, even Southern Baptist New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson admits:

            “It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [‘your throne, O God’] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: ‘God is thy throne’ or ‘Thy throne is God.’ Either makes good sense.” - p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >And again, even Southern Baptist New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson admits:
            >“It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [‘your throne, O God’] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: ‘God is thy throne’ or ‘Thy throne is God.’ Either makes good sense.” - p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.
            I wasn't going to respond because I am quite done with this (the point has been clearly proven), but this caught my eye. We saw in her final response the continuing butchery of Philippians 2, the addition of butchery of church history, but now the continuing butchery of Hebrews 1 should prove the indefensibility Arianism in light of the New Testament's testimony more clearly than anything else in this discussion. It is clear to all and I hope it is clear to you too ma'am that you cannot even touch the actual argument. You continue to respond to an entirely different argument. I hope I have gotten through to you this day, and on that note I will add one thing. In Hebrews 1:10 it says "Lord" (kyrios). You will not find the word lord in Psalm 102. The ancient israelites translated the Old Testament into Greek in a work called the Septuagint, and in it they had rendered the divine name in the text. However over the centuries the israelites developed a superstition whereby they ceased to say His name instead replacing it with the title adonai "lord", which the Septuagint changed to reflect (this is also the actual reason Christian bibles typically render the divine name as Lord). So this means that when he quotes "Lord" in verse 10 he is actually using the name Jehovah, or more properly, Yahweh.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            In Hebrews 1:10 the psalmist was talking about God, but the apostle Paul applied these words to Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 1:10, 11)

            As it turns out, these words also apply to Jesus, for he acted as Jehovah’s Agent in creating the universe ! (Colossians 1:15, 16)

            So Jesus, too, could be said to have “laid the foundations of the earth.”

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I pray you see how self-deceived you are and that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes.

            At Acts chapter 17, verse 11, people are called “noble-minded” because they were “carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so,” things taught by the apostle Paul. They were encouraged to use the Scriptures to confirm the teachings even of an apostle.

            You should do the same.

            Keep in mind that the Scriptures are “inspired of God” and are to be used for “setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) So the Bible is complete in doctrinal matters.

            If the Trinity doctrine is true, it should be there.

            I invite you to search the Bible to see for yourself if Jesus and his disciples taught a Trinity.

            As you search, ask yourself:

            >1.
            Can I find any scripture that mentions “Trinity” ?

            >2.
            Can I find any scripture that says that God is made up of three distinct persons, Father, Son, and holy spirit, but that the three are only one God ?

            >3.
            Can I find any scripture that says that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are equal in all ways, such as in eternity, power, position, and wisdom ?

            Search as you may, you will NOT find ONE scripture that uses the word Trinity, nor will you find any that says that Father, Son, and holy spirit are equal in all ways, such as in eternity, power, position, and wisdom.

            Not even a single scripture says that the Son is equal to the Father in those ways—and if there were such a scripture, it would establish not a Trinity but at most a “duality.”

            NOWHERE does the Bible equate the holy spirit with the Father.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Amen, because the Lord Jesus is God in the flesh

            Jesus said that “the true worshipers will worship the Father with truth.” (John 4:23)

            That truth has been recorded in the Bible. (John 17:17)

            Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God ?

            No !

            For one thing, the Bible does NOT mention the word “Trinity.” For another, Jesus NEVER claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44)

            A third line of evidence concerns Jesus’ relationship with his followers. Even after he was raised from the dead to the spirit realm, Jesus called his followers “my brothers.” (Matthew 28:10)

            Were they brothers of Almighty God ?

            Of course not !

            But through their faith in Christ—God’s preeminent Son—they too became sons of the one Father. (Galatians 3:26)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Hebrews 1:1-14

            literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”

            No one should deny that the title theos (NT Greek word meaning “God,” “god,” “mighty one,” “divine,” etc.) can be applied to Jesus, just as it was applied in the scriptures to angels, judges of Israel, Moses, and (according to some trinitarian authorities) even the kings of Israel.

            But theos is NEVER applied to Jesus with the most high sense that is given only to the Almighty, Most High, only true God !!!

            So it was used at Hebrews 1:8 in its positive secondary sense:
            “Your throne, o mighty one [theos], is ...”. This seems even more probable when we remember that Paul is really quoting from Psalm 45:6.

            Psalm 45 is celebrating an Israelite king’s marriage, and the psalmist applies the words of Psalm 45:6, 7 literally to an ancient Israelite king. In fact, the trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Psalm 45:1, “Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.”

            So, according to this trinitarian Bible, the words of Psalm 45:6, although figuratively referring to Jesus, were literally applied to an ancient ISRAELITE KING

            Do you believe that king Solomon was God ?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >the title theos (NT Greek word
            Now I know the Watchtower Society has lied to you and I understand you know absolutely nothing about Greek, but the word as it appears here is "ho theos" ("the God") which is the form that specifically refers to the only true God as opposed to any other meaning. In fact this word "ho" is the very same article which you folks make such a fuss over being absent in John 1:1c. The use of this article in relation to theos is equivalent to the use of a capital G in English.
            >just as it was applied in the scriptures to angels
            And here you have completely missed the point. Because whereas the Watchtower Society would reduce Jesus to being one of those angels, the apostle's purpose is to exalt Him as far above them. You will notice that I did not in spite of your pre-processed response cite verse 8 specifically, I deliberately cited every verse in the chapter because they are all from start to finish about the deity of Christ. Whereas the angels are "ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation", the Son is He who sits at the right hand of God, whom those angels themselves worship, who is the perfect copy of His very being (being exactly like Him in all ways). Verse 8 is not the strongest part of this in serving that purpose, verses 10-12 are. The quotation applied to the Son is from Psalm 102; this psalm you will notice is explicitly about Jehovah from start to finish, about His greatness and His supremacy, and in the segment quoted, His nature as the unchanging and uncreated maker of all things which are created and ever-changing. And whilst you may argue that the title of god may be given to creatures, when was the name of Jehovah ever given to anything other than He who is I Am?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I understand you know absolutely nothing about Greek, but the word as it appears here is "ho theos" ("the God") which is the form that specifically refers to the only true God as opposed to any other meaning. In fact this word "ho" is the very same article which you folks make such a fuss over being absent in John 1:1c. The use of this article in relation to theos is equivalent to the use of a capital G in English.

            You are right, I am not a Greek expert, so let's see what Greek experts says.

            While many Bible translators render the verse to say that the word is God, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different.

            In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant.

            For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” (The Translator’s New Testament, page 451.)

            Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.

            Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >would reduce Jesus to being one of those angels, the apostle's purpose is to exalt Him as far above them

            I believe you are the one missing my point.

            You need to be informed of the Biblical definitions of “god.” One meaning is nature or being, the other is worshipful.

            Thus, true Christians worship the one true God the Creator. Other competing objects of worship are false.

            But in terms of nature or being, there are many supernatural beings or gods

            For instance, Psalm 8:5 calls the angels elohim, literally “gods”

            Angels are also described as gods in the rest of the Bible, before and after Psalm 8:5, from Genesis to Revelation

            Jesus is of the same divine nature as angels. He is divine because Jesus is a mighty spiritual creature.

            The Bible also tells us that Jesus is superior to angels, because he is second only to God and he is now king in heaven !

            Jehovah God used him as our savior in order for us to put faith in him and attain salvation !

            >And whilst you may argue that the title of god may be given to creatures, when was the name of Jehovah ever given to anything other than He who is I Am?

            Jehovah has never given this title to anyone, what are you arguing about ?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I believe you are the one missing my point.
            I consider that unlikely given your point was a premade response to an argument which I did not make which did not respond to the argument I actually made. However, the point which you missed that I was referring to was not mine, but the apostle's.
            >Jehovah has never given this title to anyone
            I request that you please go back and read my actual point, and then read Hebrews 1, and then read Psalm 102, because that was in fact my entire point. Jehovah is a name which is not transferred to creatures, yet it is applied to Jesus in this scripture.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Thus, true Christians worship the one true God the Creator. Other competing objects of worship are false.
            Is Jesus to be worshipped or not worshipped? Does Hebrews 1 not say that even the angels worship Him?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The worship is directed to God

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      That's funny, I seem to remember demonstrating the deity of Christ to you from Philippians 2 and Hebrews 1 without any response

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Quaballah says the opposite

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Sorcerer will NEVER go to paradise.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >YOU'VE BEEN A NAUGHTY BOY, ARIUS!

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >we don't fit the definition of a cult.
    >btw, if you don't believe what we believe, we can't speak to you no longer lmao

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      If they left the true religion that means they want to be left alone, so we respect their wishes and leave them alone and don't interfere with their life.

      I fail to see the issue.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Back to thread topic. Yes.
    At least with catholics. Every form in which the trinity can make sense is a heresy.
    To be fair, I imagine some Protestant trinitarians would have arguments.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Out of this entire thread, only one (1) person actually kept on the topic OP started ()

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The debate in the thread gave the answer by demonstrating the doctrine of the Trinity from the text of Hebrews 1 and Philippians 2. The argument is biblical in nature, not philosophical.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Thats what JWgay does,he derails every thread to proselytize his cult

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      There's many problems with this graph, but the biggest is pretending like you can be a Christian without believing in the true God. The trinity is an anachronism, in the bible it is three distinct doctrines which later coalesced into one in response to the heresies which arose against them. The bible teaches that there is one God, that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Father is not the Son or the Spirit and the Son is not the Spirit. This is the problem with the heretics, because this is who God revealed Himself as to man. So that box with the gibberish word is really asking "are you damned if you reject the true God?" And the answer is an emphatic yes, at a minimum you are under the anathema of Galatians 1:8-9.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        How do modalism or partialism contradict that there is one God, the three persons are god and the persons are not each other?

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Trinitarians have the best argument. Revelation.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's the punch of divinity

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    All monotheists know that christians are polytheists. The amount of energy they display to bring up verses to try to justify something inherently unjustifiable is hilarious.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >christians are polytheists.

      How ?

      We believe in and worship one God, Jehovah.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        you/JW are a marginal, ridiculous sect. the majority of christians are catholics, protestants of some color or orthodox.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You have already been conclusively refuted on this, your input is no longer necessary

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    My Lord commanded me not to cast pearls before swine.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    JW were founded at the beginning of the twentieth century, and absolutely no one can follow the bible, since the bible is a hodgepodge of contradictory teachings. the political phenomenon called christianity refers to mainstream christianity, which arguably excludes your weird little cult.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >the bible is a hodgepodge of contradictory teachings. the political phenomenon called christianity

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      weak.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    My Lord is the real Jesus, not the one Arius and Charles Russel made up.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    first century christianity was adoptionist to the core. are you?

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    yes. Christians in general have no arguments. This is why Celsus' book was burned while Origen's book was allowed to exist.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Was I supposed to stay silent ?
    Yes heretic you were, and you will be judged by Christ for your effort to murder men's souls.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >how did I derail it
    the whole thread is made up of your rants, with very few interspersed posts by other posters. we cannot talk to each other because it is very hard to find those posts not made by you.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    No, because you reject its teachings, you reject the only Christ and promote a different one, who is not another. For this you will be judged.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    you are not just replying, but emitting verbal diarrhea. excessive amounts of text in excessive amounts of posts equals spamming, whether on-topic or not. but you obviously have some mental problem preventing you from realizing this.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >I follow the Bible ?
    NWT is not a Bible, its a bad translation made by dishonest people, that have very thin grasp of greek and hebrew

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Name oen example
    "oen" example of a mass phenomenon?
    >I am simply refuting a false point
    it is immaterial what you think you are doing. you do it in too many posts. at least stop with the redditspacing.
    >Why?
    who knows? no sect member I have ever met was completely sane, so it's probably a filter.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Jesus also says he is the Lord. Either you believe in multiple gods, or you believe that Christ is a liar when he claimed Godhood.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *