Cos

Either you do...or you don't.
Apparently you don't.

Your premise is based on a false assumption analogous to assuming the Battleship Missouri is a woman named Mo.
For all the reasons I have stated earlier, I reject your not understanding Hebrew thought processes and linguistic conventions.
My theology may be described as a "chainsaw theology".
It has to make common sense and have real life examples .
You don't define common sense with scripture ... YOU DEFINE SCRIPTURE WITH WHAT MAKES COMMON SENSE.
Nowhere in the known Universe, or on the other side of the "Big Bang" are there any known, observable examples of natural  three-in-one life forms.
NOWHERE!
Even a man and his wife, referred to as "One" in the Bible, are not joined at the hip ... although I have actually seen a teenage girl with two heads riding a bicycle, in a documentary.
 

As Carl Childers once said between bites of canned potted meat "Get it?"

You know, or might know, that Battleships in the USA are referred to as "she", as are many large ships, and boats, and that the Battleship Missouri, that fought in WWII, and upon which the surrender of Japan was signed, is referred to as "Mighty Mo" and other nicknames.
Notice that I just referred to the Battleship Missouri as having fought in WWII.
Ships do not actually fight ... men on those ships fight.
It is similar to the expression " ... the White House said today ..." when the President makes some comment or opinion.
The White House is not actually a talking building .... but that is the expression.
"A synecdoche (/sɪˈnɛkdəkiː/, sih-NEK-də-kee;[1] from Greek συνεκδοχή, synekdoche, lit. "simultaneous understanding")[2] is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa.[3] A synecdoche is a class of metonymy, often by means of either mentioning a part for the whole or conversely the whole for one of its parts. Examples from common English expressions include "bread and butter" (for "livelihood"), "suits" (for "businessmen"), "boots" (for "soldiers") (pars pro toto), and "vacuum" (for "vacuum cleaner") or conversely "America" (for "the United States of America") (totum pro parte).[4]
The use of government buildings to refer to their occupant(s) is on the border between synecdoche and metonymy. "The Pentagon" for the United States Department of Defense can be considered synecdoche, as the building can be considered part of the department. "No. 10" for the British Prime Minister can be counted as metonymy, since the building is not part of the person, but using "No. 10" to mean "the Office of the Prime Minister" is synecdoche"  - Wikipedia.
Hebrew uses extensively a parallelism of ideas in its structure.
"Mighty Mo" is not a sentient transvestite war combatant, and ...
... the Holy Spirit is not a person.
 
 

Mr. Rook,
 
I want to know what Biblical support you have for the your idea that the Holy Spirit is a power/force... do you have any? I think not.
 
Also, I don’t need to substitute anything. Like it or not, you brought up the silly example of drivers’ license to try to support your manmade idea, I just showed how unsubstantiated it was. <><

In an initial post we are given a Unitarian view point which seeked to explain away the implications of the passage of Matthew 28:19, to the tone that verse 18 gives the meaning of verse 19. That in verse 19, “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 … The disciples are to do these things in the name of the authority of the Father, given to the Son, by the Holy Spirit…”
 
That was how the Unitarian explanation was given in spite of the clear meaning of the passage.
 
Yet after stating the assumed meaning of how the passage goes, then followed another post which basically is an account of someone else’s claims and which at the end states basically the same idea as the first post; but this second post does more, it implies that the passage of Matthew 28:19 is a later insertion to support the Trinity.
 
How can the passage of Matthew 28:19 mean what is claimed in the first post (and at the end of the second post) and also be a later insertion?
 
That is just typical of the contradictive nonsense some propagate. The reason for this I believe is because this simple passage speaks volume and some just don’t like the implications of what that means.
 
Let’s note, without getting into a long expose, that in the baptismal passage of Matthew 28:29, Jesus marks, as parallel, the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this is particularly interesting when you consider the fact that in the Bible nothing can be equivalent with God in anyway.
 
Yet here Jesus deliberately expresses the co-equality of the three. Some clearly don’t like this and will even try to cast doubt on the genuineness of the passage.
 
Now it is a growing position from some groups such as Muslins, Modalists, Arian/Unitarians and some Jews, that the passage of Matthew 28:19 is not genuine. Even some liberal academics have fallen for this ruse.
 
The passage is textually authentic being found in all Greek manuscripts and ancient version, see for example the UBS Greek Text critical edition on the New Testament or Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
 
These groups, who cast doubt on Matthew 28:19, all refer to the fourth century Historian, Eusebius to try to validate their claims.
 
What these group fail to see (or maybe they are just fixated on trying to make it seem that the passage is not genuine) is that Eusebius has a tendency to paraphrase.
 
To demonstrate, in Demonstratio Evangelica, one of the places which the author in the second post cites, and where Eusebius is supposed to be quoting the short version of Matthew 28:19, notice that Eusebius also "quotes" Philippians 2:9. However, the statement is certainly not a quotation:
 
Eusebius writes :
 
“For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.’ (Demonstatio Evangelica, col. 240, p. 136)
 
But, Philippians 2:9 in full is:
 
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth”
 
Eusebius of Caesarea, when discussing the history of the gospel going forth to the world would paraphrase passages from Scripture, keeping the focus on the command to preach to all nations.
 
However, when discussing matters of theology, he quotes the passage of Matthew 28:19 more fully:
 
"We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, 'Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,'" (Eusebius' Letter to the Church in Caesarea).
 
So even Eusebius knew of and used the full form of the text we have today, he simply felt free to paraphrase it at times when his purpose did not require a full citation.
 
In the passages in the Book of Acts, such as Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48 etc, when looked at in context the phrase “in the name of” is not a formula as that of Matthew 28:19, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!" We understand that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law.   It is the same with baptism "in Jesus' name."  To baptize in Jesus' name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus.  Consider the following from Acts:
 
"And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health" (Acts 4:7-10).
 
"But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name. And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus" (Acts 4:17-18).
 
"We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us" (Acts 5:28).
 
"And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them" (Acts 5:40).
 
"But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike" (Acts 8:12)
 
"But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord" (Acts 9:27-28)
 
"And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour" (Acts 16:18)
 
As can be seen, the expression in the book of Acts is one of authority. So also when people were being baptized, they did it calling on Jesus' name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth. The faithful are supposed to "call upon the name of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority that we Christians have the hope and right for the forgiveness of sins.
 
After Jesus’ resurrection He told His followers to go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the one singular name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ONE God, three persons. He told them to teach these new disciples from the nations all that He had commanded, and He promised to be with them always.
 
The Bible powerfully preserved, throughout the ages and through numerous streams of evidence the words of Matthew 28:19. If your beliefs cannot reconcile with these words, it is your beliefs that are in error, not the words. <><

Mr. Rook,
 
Please note the following Scriptures.
 
“For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
 
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). <><

The quotes I gave are a Literal Translation and are from my Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green Sr. You might also want to look up Young’s Literal Translation.
 
The rest of what you say is a complete and utter load of bias rubbish oozing from you distorted mind. You have no idea whatsoever on any of the things you say, none. It is no wonder you agree with that dishonest Space merchant…birds of a feather…<><

Mr. Rook,
 
Please note the following Scriptures.
 
“For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
 
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). <><

Mr. Rook
 
It amazes me how many times you get so many things wrong.
 
You imply that Revelation 1:1-2 should be enough to prove that Jesus is not God, because as you reason, Jesus is given the Revelation from God.
 
But you forget that Jesus is the mediator between the Godhead and mankind, in His mediatorial role He is given the Revelation to pass on to man.
 
The fact is, Jesus has been resurrected as man and His role as mediator and revealer is not over. The fact is Jesus has a great more to say to His true followers (compare John 16:12).
 
But you JWs won’t understand this as Jesus is not directly your mediator as such because the Watchtower falsely teaches that He is only the mediator for the 144,000.
 
Let me make this point plain, Jesus, in His role as mediator represents the matters of God to man, and as mediator He is revealing to man the revelation of the Godhead, the verse speaks of Him in His meditorial role, to claim as you do that this proves He is not God is quite ridiculous, and ignores what Scriptures says elsewhere.
 
The Revelation comes from the Godhead, and it is given to Jesus as mediator to pass on to man. And Jesus is qualified to perform the role of mediator because He is both God and man, do you get it…probably not! <><

Space merchant,
 
I read through your response and I am astounded by the amount of your contradictions, not only that but you even deliberately alter my statement to try to cover up for something you said.
 
I said on January 20;
 
 
Note carefully that my above statement does NOT contain the word “eternal”!
 
You responded on January 24 with this comment;
 
 
I replied on January 28
 
 
Now here comes your contradiction and deliberate altering of what I said;
 
 
 
You added the word ‘eternal’ to my statement and then made up the excuse that that was what you were responding to.
 
This shows me your true character (John 8:44) and to which I will not waste anymore of my time addressing your dishonest claims any further! <><
 

Space merchant,
 
I will keep this response short because a long post is difficult for some to read.
 
I only touched on the Hebrew word echad in my other post and how the basic meaning is “united” from the root “to unify”, which apparently is only “half correct”.
 
Consider this, if the Bible writers, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that God is multi-personal, as is claimed by most Bible believing Christians, then we would expect to find that these authors would write about God in such a way as to indicate this to their readers, right?
 
There are some nine different Hebrew words, which at times are translated as the word “one” (also there are many variants of these nine).
 
Now, the question that comes to mind if the Unitarian claims are correct, is which of these nine words would they apply to God to indicate that God is a moneity, not a plurality?
 
Out of the nine Hebrew words only one would indicate that God is one solitary person. And if that word is applied to God in the Bible, then I and all Bible believing Christians would not have a leg to stand on.
 
The word is yachiyd (Strong’s #3173), and means an absolute or solitary one. It is even translated “solitary” in Psalm 68:6, and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture (see Ps. 25:16; 68:6; Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; etc.).
 
A  Arian/Unitarian should naturally expect to find that the word yachiyd be applied to God in the Bible, at least once...
 
On the other hand, Bible believing Christians would not expect to find yachiyd applied to God because we believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead.
 
And so, when we turn to the Bible, what do we find? Scripture never applies yachiyd to God, and never describes God as a solitary person. 
 
 On the other hand, if the writers of Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed God to be multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would apply the word echad to God because this would mean that God is “one” in a composite sense.
 
And as a matter of fact, echad is the only available Hebrew word they could use to express this reality.
 
So when we open the Bible, what do we find?
 
We find that echad is applied to God.
 
He is “one” in the sense of a composite unity. This is central to the Biblical concept of God.
 
The use of echad in Duet. 6:4 is exactly what Bible believing Christians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of Persons and not just a solitary person (for confirmation see Zech 2:5-11 which is an example of this).
 
Like it or not, there are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such a thought could be expressed.
 
It is interesting to note also that the Greek word heis performs the same function as the Hebrew echad.
 
Bible believing Christians everywhere, following the teachings of Jesus (John 10:30, Matt. 28:19) believe, without a doubt, that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity.
 
I want to look at John 17: 3 as this seems to be the preferred go to verse of Arian/Unitarians in an attempt to deny the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
 
Look, similar language to John 17:3 appears in Jude 4, where the more reliable Greek texts read that Jesus is “our only Master and Lord”. Here the same adjective “only” appears in the same grammatical position (attributive).
 
So if we were to use the line of interpretation that you do for John 17:3, then Jude 4 restricts the Master and Lord to one person, Jesus Christ.
 
How can Jesus be our only Master and Lord when the Father is also our Lord and Master?
 
Or put another way, how can the Father be our Master and Lord if Jesus is, as Jude 4 says, our ONLY Master and Lord?
 
The same reasoning being applied by you to John 17:3 would deny that any other Person other than Jesus Christ could be our “Master and Lord” according to Jude 4!
 
Do you apply the same exegetical principles to Jude 4 as you demand in John 17:3? If not why not?
 
Now, what then is the correct understanding of the language in John 17:3?
 
Jesus says, that they might know you…and me.
 
Imagine that… we might know a creature and that our eternal life depends on it!
 
We need to know God to have life and that includes our knowing Jesus Christ, the one who had made Himself to occupy a lower POSITION than the angels in order to pay the toll. And by looking at Jude 4 might help you to see how superficial some are when reading John 17:3.
 
Only by understanding Jesus Christ as an ultimate and equal member of the eternal Godhead can we rightfully say that He's our ONLY Master and Lord.
 
See how easily the Trinity accommodates this? Without the Trinity the passage appears to be an outright contradiction to Scripture elsewhere.
 
Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this:  Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His Son.
 
Salvation depends on knowing both! The Son is one with the Father.
 
The Son is God in every sense the Father is (John 1:1) and is confessed as Lord and God (John 20:28).
 
It would be strange, indeed, a created being, sent to reveal the Father, would equate knowing Himself with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation.  Unless, of course, He is essentially equal as the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him.
 
I will look at and respond to your other long post at a later date. <><

If I had to choose between one dead guy's opinion over another ... I would choose that of Sir Isaac Newton, over that of Irenaeus's opinion .....
What is it about Iranaeus that would give his thoughts special consideration?
I know quite a bit about Sir Isaac Newton ... arguably the smartest natural man that ever lived.

Space merchant,
 
I read through your response and I am astounded by the amount of your contradictions, not only that but you even deliberately alter my statement to try to cover up for something you said.
 
I said on January 20;
 
 
Note carefully that my above statement does NOT contain the word “eternal”!
 
You responded on January 24 with this comment;
 
 
I replied on January 28
 
 
Now here comes your contradiction and deliberate altering of what I said;
 
 
 
You added the word ‘eternal’ to my statement and then made up the excuse that that was what you were responding to.
 
This shows me your true character (John 8:44) and to which I will not waste anymore of my time addressing your dishonest claims any further! <><
 

......………….particularly when compared to no Scriptural backing. <><

This is a typical response from someone who follows the shifting teachings of a magazine. Scripture demonstrates the distinction and personality of the Holy Spirit from the Father in many places, Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 are two such examples. <><

Oh dear Dee. This looked as complication to me :)) To make other illustration. Old Jew people as nation are physical and spiritual continuation from time of Moses until this day today.
Jehovah Witnesses have its beginning in 1935 as some kind of continuation of Bible Students (from 1879), because WTBTS is/was legal Mother of both group. By that we can talk about some sort of "physical and spiritual" continuation. 
But JW or WT have no connection with 1 century Jesus followers as CONTINUATION. Talking about "spiritual" connection and  continuation in such way is in field of speculation and wishes. :)) 

Ms DeeDee,
 
I’m not disputing that people can have a relationship with God, I’m saying that they did long before the JW religion came onto the scene. <><

Ms DeeDee,
 
It is amusing how you guys only quote those passages that show Jesus is fully man and there stop, thinking you have proved He is not God. The Bible shows many times that Jesus is worshipped! 
 
JWs claim Jesus is Michael the archangel, now note please how Michael the archangel does not have the authority to rebuke Satan. We see in Jude 9 that Michael must bridle his tongue, so to speak, before the foe of man. We read, “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 9).
 
In contrast Jesus rebuked the devil to his face (Matt 4:10). Since Michael could not rebuke the devil in his own authority and Jesus could (and did), then Jesus and Michael cannot be the same person! <><

Ms DeeDee,
 
With a gap of some 1900 years in-between...come on that’s just plain ridiculous. <><

Ms DeeDee,
 
I’m not disputing that people can have a relationship with God, I’m saying that they did long before the JW religion came onto the scene. <><

Ms DeeDee,
 
It is amusing how you guys only quote those passages that show Jesus is fully man and there stop, thinking you have proved He is not God. The Bible shows many times that Jesus is worshipped! 
 
JWs claim Jesus is Michael the archangel, now note please how Michael the archangel does not have the authority to rebuke Satan. We see in Jude 9 that Michael must bridle his tongue, so to speak, before the foe of man. We read, “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 9).
 
In contrast Jesus rebuked the devil to his face (Matt 4:10). Since Michael could not rebuke the devil in his own authority and Jesus could (and did), then Jesus and Michael cannot be the same person! <><

Ms DeeDee,
 
Maybe you have been fed false information or you made this all up?

I also went to a Catholic school as did my siblings; and then was shunned because my mother pulled me out in the 6th grade to attend a different school that gave greater variety of classes.  Amid rulers slapped over the wrists, pulled hair by the nuns, and the highbrow looks my father received for his meager donations from a family with little money, he did not deter from his devotion as a Catholic.   During a brief time during these years, a JW was making calls on my mother regularly, until his suggestive looks, actions and comments sent him packing.
These two religions, as well as all centralized religions share the same characteristics that I do see in the points above.  The Catholic church has relaxed its standards, but not so the Watchtower which has only tightened the reigns.  I scrutinized the list to make sure it compared to the reality…of the Watchtower.  Perhaps because I have run the whole gamut, I clearly see how all points apply.
Jesus said true worshipers of God will worship in Spirit and truth, and that no earthly “mountain” is the source of our worship. This means no centralized religion within this world can receive God’s favor; except the only “organization” that He himself instituted; the anointed Body of Christ and authentic Temple of God.  John 4:21-24; 1Cor.3:16; 1Pet.2:5,9-10; Eph.2:20-22
"Just because all prostitutes wear shoes ... does not mean that everyone who wears shoes are prostitutes."
But their companionship can bring a man to ruin.  Prov 5:1-20; 6:26; Jer 14:14-16; Rev 18:4-8
“Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”  James 1:27
These are well done videos that I shared here a few years ago.  Someone  may find them enlightening.
The Channel of God Part 1 The Walsh Trial Jehovah's Witnesses   
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TLbffsuyz0&t=845s
Channel of God P2 Simple Brotherhood to Centralized Authority Jehovah's Witnesses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTL2CFl7434
The Channel of God P3 From Simple Brotherhood to Centralized Authority Jehovah's Witnesses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpEHVaMn9Ok
 
 
 
 
 

So what you mean is that by knowing that Gonzalo Campo molested kids and making him an elder and putting him with other kids, is just a byproduct of doing God will?
Also, keeping him in the cong keeps him from slipping out and into another one? 
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2816630/13-5M-award-Jehovahs-Witnesses-molest-case.html
Isn't this a job for the police? Why is it discouraged to report? Oh and don't give me that BS about "we don't discourage" yes they do. Those "elders" are not even qualified to hold a conversation about psychology let alone actually try and do anything about abuse. 
 
 Keep drinking that glass of water with the drop of poison in it.