Cos

1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

The triune aspect of God is actually a Pagan belief.

Many of the Pagan Gods and Goddesses were in a triple form.

In an effort to convert the pagan nations to Christianity,

the early Christian church adopted many Pagan customs, holidays and beliefs

including promoting the Triple God concept for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Ms DeeDee,

One thing needs to be understood, the devil counterfeits the truth. In many pagan religions there is the story of a dying and raising saviour, many also have a creation story, etc, etc; are you to nullify the Bible teaching on these because the devil tries to confuse the truth? I should hope not because that's what he wants you to do!

1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

Many of the Pagan Gods and Goddesses were in a triple form.

In my younger days as part of my curriculum I had studied mythology, to which “pagan gods and goddesses” are you referring to that were “in a triple form”? <><

Folks, the early church writers discussed and rebuked many false teaching, but nowhere do they even mention anything that resembles the JW form of religion or even the Unitarian form of religion until the Arians of fourth century. Surely if a group resembling the JW/Unitarian religion were present before the fourth century then the early church writers would have said something about them, but nothing.

Instead here is some of what they did say;

Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19).

Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25)

Hippolytus  (170-235) “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8).

This is just a few examples of what the early Christians believed and taught before Arianism and its later spin offs; there are many more examples that could be called on.

Some, like Mr. Rook, want to blame Christians for all that is wrong in the world like. They will ignore the continual rise of false political idealism to blame Trinitarians for wars. But this kind of self-righteous attitude does not disprove that God is Triune. <><

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 6:49 AM, Space Merchant said:

I will be brief (kinda) because I have made note of such a while ago by some Muslim guy was trying to put all Christians into one category.

To understand why it says what it says in Matthew 28:19, you'd have to go back a verse, as well as look at other verses in context with the one you are focused on, from a perspective as a Christian and from a perspective as on how early Christians interpret it (An example would be Church Father and Historian Eusebius).

What Jesus was saying in Matthew 28:18 is that the Father has given him, the Son, all authority. We must now check out as to how this occurred. This authority is administered by the Holy Spirit in the disciples who baptize all nations. The reason Father (Yahweh/Jehovah), Son (Yeshua/Jesus), are mentioned together here is because we have just been told all authority has been given by the Father to the Son, in this sense, Jehovah God has bestowed authority and power to Lord Jesus Christ. With this in mind, the reason Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned altogether is because this authority given to Jesus is administered by his servants via the Holy Spirit. So when we come to the book of Acts and see them baptize in the name of Jesus we should not see this as contradicting Jesus' instructions in the gospel of Matthew. Baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit wasn't really something they were supposed to say out loud when they were baptizing. Jesus was explaining on what terms they would be doing this baptizing. Since Jesus had been given all authority he would now send out these disciples in HIS name because HE had been given that authority by the Father. And Jesus sent them out by filling them with the Holy Spirit (John 20:22), hence the meaning of Baptism and or Ritual Washing/Mikveh, that the follower is now following the teachings of this teacher.

To insist that name here is a proper name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is an hermeneutic violation of the immediate context ignoring the fact that all (singular) authority/power had been given to Jesus alone as seen in Matthew 28:18. This occurred when God raised him from the dead (Risen Jesus) and seated him at His right hand, hence God given authority. The one thing which the singular name is pertaining to is the one authority of God the Father (Yahweh/Jehovah) through God's Son (Yeshua/Jesus) in God's Holy Spirit (God's Active force and or his hands/fingers as described in both Psalms 8:3, 19:1 and in Luke 11:20/compare to Matthew 12:28). The disciples are to do these things in the name of the authority of the Father, given to the Son, by the Holy Spirit, this is why Jesus commanded his disciples to do nothing until they had received the Holy Spirit from on High (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5,8; 2:33,36). The interpretation presented here is demanded not only by the ancient concept of a name but the force of the immediate context and the consistent testimony of the Scriptures. As such, the word name is not a reference to one identity, but to one plan and purpose of authority.

Another thing to know within the origin of Baptism (this is kinda off-topic), there is a custom called The Mikveh (מקווה). The bible does not use the Mikveh, however, it is used in context, as seen in Genesis 1:9, described as a "collection of water". In 1 Corinthians 1 :14-16 Paul explains baptism of individuals, in this sense, a teacher who baptizes his disciples in an immersion of water, in the Mikveh, in his name, which means that the follower is now following the teachings of this teacher, which is evident in Paul's actions in the New Testament, coming his disciples. This is what is met in Acts 2 :38, which signifies that when one is baptized in Jesus' name, it means they now follow the teachings of Jesus.

Space merchant,

A good study on the meaning of Matthew 28:19 is to see how the early Christian (say before the fourth century) understood the passage.

Anyway, looking at this verse grammatically in Greek, Bible scholar Robert Reymond explains, “Jesus does not say, (1) ‘into the names [plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ or what is its virtual equivalent, (2) ‘into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Spirit,’ as if to deal with three separate beings. Nor does He say, (3) ‘into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,’ (omitting the three recurring articles), as if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might be taken as merely three designations of a single person. What He does say is this: (4) ‘into the name [singular] of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single name, and the throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article”.

The context shows that the “authority” mentioned in Matthew 28:18 explains Jesus’ right to command and send out the Disciples; “Go...” are the marching orders of the King! <><

48 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

No problem, apparently on another forum it is a meme if you are a non-Trinitarian they will assume your faith right off the bat, sometimes with negativity, but I am use to it.

I do know of the history, and the controversy behind it, even of what isn't mention.

Also, Biblical Unitarians are typically or some what Socinian in Christology, not Arian or Semi-Arian.

What you mentioned about writings, I invite you to check out these two videos on a clear analysis on the Nicea controversy, the things that has not been mentioned:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLqm4KYqQlU&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBUbhN-4waE

As well as this book: https://books.google.com/books/about/When_Jesus_Became_God.html?id=CUxsmAEACAAJ&hl=en

Whereas Robert doesn't take sides, but clearly explains the things that went about prior to and during the Council, even afterwards.

 

That being said, what I mentioned about the blog-post, there is several who believe that "a god" is correct over "was God". There are more who speak on the rendering of John 1:1 then just the one guy you mentioned.

I remember seeing a guy who spoke in behalf of JWs on YouTube who has put together an excellent presentation regarding the Coptics and why the JWs as well as those who agree with the rendering of John 1:1. If I find that video I will post it, I will essentially have to go YouTube diving to find it, the video is that old, other videos also share the same information in regards to John 1:1.

Space merchant,

Although you seem to deny Unitarianism and Arianism similarity, there is no doubt you both share the same concepts.

Anyway, I suggest you read the writings of Christians before the fourth century, which show historically that the Arian concept (shared by Unitarians) was not even heard of. <><

Newton also got things wrong like universal gravitation, and the claim that time was absolute when its not and Unitarianism...just to name a few!

If Newton were Unitarian so what? Even some of the brightest minds get things wrong! <><

Space merchant,

Thank you for explaining a little be more, I apologize for assuming you are a JW.

28 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

 if you took the time to look up the history of John 1:1 translations by some scholars.

I have!

I showed you that the correct way to use the Coptic translation is to do so in the way the translator intended not as some have done and misapply the translation to suit a false rendering.

I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you further if you like?

Let me ask you; you do know that from the writings of the early church that the Arianism/Unitarianism idea did not appear historically until the fourth century, you do know that don’t you? <><

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:10 AM, Space Merchant said:

I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

Space merchant,

Every time a JW wants to argue for their rendering of John 1:1 you cite a list of Bible version which you think support the JW rendering, as if that settles the matter.

If citing Bible versions were justifiable then many more translation CAN be cited that have “and the Word was God” many, many more!

In fact you JWs will cite anything that you think gives support to your wording from a false altered text to an Occultist rendering of John 1:1.

For example you guys quote for support the Sahidic Coptic translation, the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof!”, while ignoring everything else.

In the introduction to The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect by George Horner, he explains in his critical apparatus that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.” (JW when quoting this tend to leave out the [ ]).

Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.

“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)

“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)

“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)

“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)

“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)

Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. When examined carefully the Sahidic Coptic does not support the JW rendering…the claims made by some are unfounded and deceptive. <><

Arians/Unitarians such as JWs claim that Jesus is the first (in chronological sequence) to be born? And they site for support Colossians 1:15, claiming that the Son is a member of creation. The Watchtower also add the word “other” to the passage in their bible version to give that impression.

Guys, if the reference to "firstborn" in Scripture primarily means being the first to have been given life, then that title could never be lost because it would refer to a factual event, the first birth.

Further, the title could never be applied to someone that was not truly the first in sequence.

But the Bible shows that the title of "firstborn" can be removed or gained independently of whether a person is the first one to be born. 

1 Chronicles 5:1-2 shows that Reuben was the first one born to Isaac and yet he lost this position due to bad conduct. The position of "firstborn" passed to Joseph. 

David was called "firstborn" yet he was the youngest in the family (Psalm 89:27, 1 Samuel 16: 11-13). 

Ephraim was called the "firstborn" even though he was the second born (Jeremiah 31:9, Genesis 41:51-52). 

Thus we can see that the term "firstborn" can be used as a title. And it is in this sense that it is used in connection to Jesus in Colossians 1:15, it has nothing to do with sequence of birth or creation, but rather it is to do with authority.

If Paul was saying that Jesus was the first one created then why didn’t he use the Greek word “protoktisis” (first-created) a term which is never used of Christ in the Scriptures?

From the context we can know whether the Greek word prototokos in Col 1:15 means "first one born" or "the first in authority".

In Col. 1:18 we read of Jesus, "so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything”, this clearly shows the way prototokos should be understood in the preceding verse.

So from the context, the Greek word prototokos affirms Christ’s supremacy and sovereignty over all things and does not signify first in chronological sequence. <><

52 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

Cos,

Would the expression, "Like Father, Like Son" be in line with what you are explaining?

...as in when a Son has a similar "nature and essence" to his Father?

Ms DeeDee,

What has to be understood is that even thought Jesus by nature is God, He, however, is not the Father. <><

15 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

 

 ¹⁵ He [Jesus] is the IMAGE of the invisible God [Jehovah]...

Ms DeeDee,

Let me first of all say that the expression “image of” entails identity of nature and essence.

The Greek word eilon (“image”) according to Vines Expository Dictionary,  “involves the two ideas of representation and manifestation” (see also Vincent, Word Studies in the N.T). “Image” does not suggest a mere likeness to God or a paradigm of His person, but a real manifestation of true Deity in body form.

I’d like to show you, from the scriptures, how this word eikon can be used to convey the reality; turn to Hebrews 10:1, here we see the  “shadow” (or picture) and how it is contrasted with “the very image” (eikon), which is the reality of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. I hope this helps you to understand, if not let me know and I will expound on this further. <><

16 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

 

Thank you, Cos, for the reference information...That is the point that I was trying to make earlier. Jesus is "Eternal" and will live for eternity and will not die. Also, that the use of the word "Father" here in Isaiah:

Ms DeeDee (I presume you are Ms)

Even though Jesus is not the Father, nonetheless, He is God, just as the Father is God. <><

15 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

 

Messiah:  In the Hebrew Bible, the Messiah was the an anointed king who will lead the Jews back to the land of Israel and establish justice in the world.

The Jews were expecting the Messiah to come because of the ancient writings (see Isa. 9:6 above).

So it would seem likely that the Jews would think those titles belong to the Messiah and not Jehovah God.

Folks

Isaiah 9:6 is a prophetic description of Christ. The phrase “his name” in Isaiah 9:6 is a Hebrew idiom, and mean much more than a name that the child actually bears, it signifies that they are appellatives or descriptive designations of His person and work.

Wonderful Counsellor.

Mighty God.

Eternal Father.

Prince of Peace.

Allow me to make one point; Isaiah 9:6 is not saying that Jesus is the Father.

The designation “Eternal Father”” (“Everlasting Father” in some Bible versions) means “Father of eternity”. The word ‘Father’ carries the meaning of “possessor”; possessor of eternity.

This is in complete accordance with Hebrew custom, where he who possesses a thing is called the “father” of it. For example father of strength means “strong”; the father of knowledge means “intelligent”’; the father of compassion means “compassionate”; and the father of goodness means “good”.

So according to common usage, the phrase “Father of eternity” (Isa. 9:6) would mean eternal. Bible scholar John A. Martin thus concludes that the phrase “Eternal Father” is simply “an idiom used to describe the Messiah’s relationship to time” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary). <><

Mr. Sostar,

I can see from what you say that you have some strong convictions, thank you for sharing them.

You say that some “Catholic, Protestants, Muslim etc embraced JW teachings”, please give examples. I know Muslim’s agree with some of the JW beliefs, but that is only because it follows their own preconceived view.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 Some JW explanation have better logic than Catholic explanation, 

I’m not a Roman Catholic so I don’t know to which “explanation” you refer, but from the many discussions I have had with JWs, I know that a lot of the JW “logic” is not biblical.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

...to Bible?? With how much open mind? With how much preconceived, sceptic or open approach?   We have good chance to be deceived or to deceive ourselves by own reasoning. In any way we are losers, of some kind :)))  

I read this and then felt sorry for you because of what you say. I think you leaving the Watchtower religion has soured you to the Scriptures. I do think that a clear examination of our mental behaviors would help us when we approach the Scriptures but your comments show a clear disillusion in them. <><

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:

The scriptures clearly indicate that sinning against something counts as a sin against the one owning or represented by that thing:

Gone fishing,

In your examples, when put into context they are apparent that a person or persons are intended, even Otto’s questionable input on the non biblical “earthly visible organization” comprise persons.

But when it comes to Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisees in Matt. 12, Mark 3 the idea that to sin against the Holy Spirit means someone other than the subject mentioned is an idea that must be read into the passage. 

Remember Mark tells us why Jesus charged those scribes with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit: it was because “they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’”. And like I said, the coherent understanding (instead of reading something else into the passage) is if the "unclean spirit" is a person, then by contrast, the Holy Spirit is a person.

And it is in this that His personality is asserted, for the “unclean spirit” is a person; and if the Holy Spirit were as you claim, then no comparative opposition could be made between Him and this unclean spirit — that is, Satan.

Sorry to say, but an idea like yours ignores the context to read something different into the dialogue, this is not the logical acuity for understanding Scripture.

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:

 the Holy Spirit is God's active force

On what biblical evidence do you base your assertion?

Here again is some of the biblical evidence provided so far which prove that the Holy Spirit is a Person; He can be grieved, resisted, insulted and blasphemed, He speaks with, and loves believers; these are all qualities that prove personality. Your evidence on the other hand is lacking. <><

Hello Mr. Sostar,

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 4:11 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible verses gives sometimes opposite ideas on same subject.  

The “opposite ideas” is, in most cases, the result of when a person approaches the Bible verses with some pre-conceived thought.

I need to ask, what made you leave the Watchtower? <><

Hi Gone fishing,

I hope this post finds you well.

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 5:15 PM, Gone Fishing said:

There is good reasoning in this comment, but faulty logic. 

That would be only for someone who does not recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person. Let me briefly explain.

In Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees in Matt. 12, Mark 3, we note that the Spirit is expressly distinguished here from the Son, as one person from another. They are both spoken of with respect to the same things in the same manner; and the things mentioned are spoken concerning them in the same sense. But this is not all.

You see when the Pharisees blasphemed by saying that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, they intended a person; and so they expressed this by his name, nature, and office.

Our Lord replies that He cast out demons by the Holy Spirit — a divine person, who is in contrast to the person of the Devil. Notice carefully this fact on how, in the discourse, the Holy Spirit is used in contrast to the "unclean spirit" (Mark 3:30) i.e. Satan the Devil (Matt. 12:26). If the "unclean spirit" here is a person, then the Holy Spirit is a person.

Logically if the Holy Spirit is not a Person then Jesus should have said that He cast the demons out by the Father.

Jesus then immediately adds His instruction and caution to this, that they should take heed how they blasphemed that Holy Spirit, by assigning His works to the prince of demons, one person contrast with another person.

Blasphemy against the Spirit directly manifests both what and who He is. It is especially such a unique blasphemy in the fact that it can’t be forgiven.

The Son may be blasphemed as to his distinct person as it says here — and upon that, it is added that the Holy Spirit also may be distinctly blasphemed, or be the immediate object of that sin, again one person and another person.

This example coupled with others give evidence of the personality of the Holy Spirit. To think of acting or reacting to an influence in this ways is incongruous.

It is impossible to blaspheme or sin against anything but a person. Were He not a person, then the Holy Spirit could not be sinned against.

Certainly the fact that the Holy Spirit can be grieved, resisted, insulted and blasphemed give evidence to His personality along with the fact that He has a mind and will, that He speaks to, and loves believers, these are just some of the many scriptural evidence that confirm that the Holy Spirit is a Person as opposed to no evidence to deny this.

At the moment I have many matters that require my attention, so I cannot respond to you as quickly as I would like, hopefully you can bear with me on any delay. <><

In a systematic biblical examination on the Deity of the Lord Jesus students of the Bible look at three major contributing factors;

1.    Jesus’ names and titles which establish that He is God.

2.    Jesus’ attributes (the things that only God can do) validate He is God.

3.    Jesus’ abilities (the things that Jesus has done) confirm He is God.

Concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ, we have in the Bible's direct statements that he is God. This is what JWs twist and say is not found in the Bible.

Jesus’ names and titles. This is an important and interesting study (recommended for all) about the names and titles that were given to Jesus, for example, in Matthew 1:21 it says that His name shall be called Yehoshua (Hebrew for Jesus), which means “Yahweh is salvation.”

Some of you will read that and say, in a nice way, “Well wait a minute. You could call somebody “Jesus” today (as some were named in Biblical times) and it is just a testimony to the fact that Yahweh (Jehovah) will save. It’s not saying that Jesus is Yahweh.”

Well only when on its own while ignoring the rest of the verse would this line of reasoning be valid, but we have a multitude of examples that show that the opposite is the case. So instead please read carefully what the verse actually says, note the specific personal pronouns that all refer to the one to be born.

“She will give birth to a son, and you are to NAME HIM Jesus, for HE (Greek αὐτὸς) will save HIS people from their sins” (Matt 1:21 NWT emphasis mine)

We note here that the word  αὐτὸς is emphatic; and rightly so “For it is He that (he is the one who) shall save his people from their sins.”

In this case the one to be born is being identified by His name. Who, in the eternal purpose He is, really and absolutely, in Himself; the very substance of His being, God the Saviour – God who saves, Immanuel (Matt 1:23).

I have been very, very brief here, however I do hope to stimulate further interest. <><

If the Holy Spirit were only a power/force or attribute as is claimed, then sin against God would automatically be sin against the Holy Spirit also...but... the Spirit can be sinned against separate from the Father, that is, apart from the Father! The Holy Spirit may be distinctly blasphemed, or be the immediate object of that sin, which is inexpiable. Sorry to say that without any Biblical evidence, to suppose, that this Holy Spirit is not a Person is for men to dream while they seem to be awake. <><

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 7:06 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

John 1:1

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

1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.* NWT from JWorg

Mr Sostar,

And it can easily be shown that the NWT is the incorrect rendering. <><

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:38 AM, Nana Fofana said:

 

Ms Fofana,

Sorry for the lateness of this response, so many things occupy my attention of late.

Nana:

It is very deceptive, imo, to refer to "quoting articles out of context", as if the customary and accepted practice is not to quote anything unless 'context'   -maybe the whole article?, or maybe the whole book?, or maybe everything the author ever wrote, along with his life history, including the context of the times in which he operated?-   is included,  and then to portray a false innuendo by calling them "misquotes." 

Of course it depends on which side you are on whether you agree on the use of any quote, but for me if the quote is intentionally made so that it appears to say one thing when really it is saying another that then constitutes as deception, and that is not a trait of real Christianity, no matter how you try to excuse it, only false religion would stoop to that leave...sorry. Visit any good library and you will see what I mean for yourself!

 I didn't hear  what you say is "Oneness idea" at the UCC, and that's what I was trying to say all along!

Wherever you get this idea from that Jesus is the Father it is incorrect and it is not the Trinity. The Father is a person, the Son is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a person who exist as One (Matt. 28:19) that, put simply, is the Trinity. Jesus being God does not mean that Jesus is the Father, any who claim this are just as wrong as the JWs claims about Him.

Here is offered some New Testament basis that the trinity concept is unscriptural.-

You refer to Matt. 16:13-16 where Jesus is confessed to be the Son of God by Peter. Jesus’ sonship is also confessed by the disciples in Matthew 14: 33, it was also a part of Caiaphas’s question to Jesus at his trial (Matt 26: 63), and the sonship of Jesus is also the focus of a round of taunts lobbed at him while nailed to the cross (Matt. 27: 39– 43). These people all knew what being the Son of God meant!

Jesus is the Son of God, but what that means must be understood in the way the ancients viewed the term, not read with a modern “understand” back into the Scriptures.

Jesus is called "the Son of God" in a non-literal sense, since He was not procreated. In fact Christians claim that Jesus, according to the NT and the way those around him understood the term that it meant that Jesus possess the nature of God fully and completely (see for example Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3).

When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, and asked Him two questions (mentioned together in Matt and Mark, but stated as proposed separately by Luke. “Are you the Christ?” (Luke 22:67) and “Are you then the Son of God? (Luke 22:70). And it was the affirmative answer of Jesus to the last of these questions, which were grounds for condemnation.

Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it.

He therefore affirmed under oath, at His trial before the council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the phrase was meant, and for this He was condemned to death.

According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honour to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7). This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just.  

So when we read the account in the Bible, the Jews brought two charges against Jesus, one was treason against Caesar, by making Himself a King.  To this charge Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you a king?” (John 18:37). Jesus answered in the affirmative, but so that they would not convict Him of a crime of which He was not guilty, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted Him of the charge (John 18:38).  

In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation.

If Jesus was not entitled to divine honour, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it. To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death. 

Yes Jesus is the Son of God. That is, true God from true God, Amen. <><

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:37 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

 

Well, she might have gotten it from the signs one routinely sees everywhere: "Jesus is God!"

Mr Harley,

Even that guess on your part would constitute as a poor assumption. <><

12 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

I agree with this part!

Ms Fofana,

Sadly your idea of Jesus is not only wrong it is also a fourth century invention. <><

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 6:56 AM, Shiwiii said:

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 

 

Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

Hi Shiwiii,

Yes I believe so. The booklet became an embarrassment to the JWs because of all the false and misleading quotes. <><

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 12:56 PM, Nana Fofana said:

if I imagine someone  saying  "Jesus is God", I imagine them sounding like a TV evangelist, if you know what I mean. 

Ms Fofana,

Once again thank you for your response and for sharing a little of your background. I know what you mean about TV evangelists sometimes the way they speak can seem a little off-putting, but in general that does not mean that what they say is wrong, for its not.

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 12:56 PM, Nana Fofana said:

"the son is the father'.  That sounded bizarre to me when I first heard it and it has gone on sounding bizarre to me  

 

Can I just say that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father! I looked up the beliefs of the United Church of Christ head office at http://www.ucc.org, and they nowhere claim to believe that “the son is the father”. I don’t know where you got this Oneness idea from, which is not the Trinity at all.

You mention what JW’s believe, but what you give under “definition” is not a clear representation of the Trinity, sorry. And you then go on to quote, questionably, from certain secular source.

The first from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which, in your quote gives the impression that the Trinity developed some 300 years after the apostles; this is NOT the case as I have stated before. Interestingly left out of this quote is a lot of information which is contrary to the innuendo of your quote, for example the Encyclopedia Britannica has, “Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126 emphasis mine)

You know, I wonder if you actually have read the whole article from the Encyclopedia Britannica or if you just read the misleading quotes given in Watchtower publications/website?

Your next quote comes from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and again the quote is very misleading. The article your quote from in this Encyclopedia concludes “it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity Vol. 14, p299-300).

Not only does your selective quoting not give the full picture, it does not even investigate the primary objectiveness of the article from where the quote comes.

Next is the quote from The Encyclopedia Americana, this quote of yours is again misleading and projects the false impression that early Christian teaching was not Trinitarian. The Encyclopedia Americana, says under the article “Trinity Doctrine” Vol. 27, page 67, “In the New Testament it is evident that the doctrine of a trinity in the divine nature is clearly and copiously taught”.

Next the quote from Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel. When read in context, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel doesn't say that the Christian trinity is borrowed from either the Platonic or pagan trinities. All that the dictionary says it that Plato borrowed his trinity from the pagans. The dictionary suggests, which clearly indicates that it is not sure, ("appears to be" means not certain) that there is a connection between the Christian trinity and the "Platonic trinity". In other words, the dictionary is guessing!

And lastly you quote from John McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible; but your quote fails to mention that in the very same article it states, "He (Jesus) knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, page 899).

It is very deceptive to quote articles out of context and then to portray a false innuendo by those misquotes.

The fact that the early church spoke of the Tri-unity of God long before the fourth century shows that you JWs are wrong in your claims; and as history shows it was Arianism which was developed in the fourth century, and that Arianism was totally unknown prior to this date.

We have Christian writers before the fourth century, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus who all spoke of Christ as God and of the Trinity. These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ and the Trinity did not originate in the fourth century as you JW’s mistakenly claim. Here are some examples of this fact:

Justin Martyr 100 AD – 165 AD “…you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order TO PROVE that Christ is called BOTH GOD AND LORD OF HOSTS…” ( Dialogue with Trypho, Chpeter 36 emphasis added).

Hippolytus 170 AD – 235 AD writes “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, WHO, BEING GOD, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8 emphasis added)

I could easily call up many more examples from the early church, all before the fourth century, that refute the JW claim, but because a lot of the above is taken up with showing you how the quotes you cite are deceptive in their implied innuendo, this response has already turned out quite long. The writings of the early church demonstrate clearly that Arianism (which is similar to the JW belief system) was invented in the fourth century. <><