Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[Katzpur]

Sorry Kat, it's not intentional. I'm not trying to insult you.

Okay, apology accepted.

I thought we'd agreed that there is only one God and not three. Wouldn't it be blasphemy to say there are three?

It would be blasphemous if I was implying that the three "persons" (whom I believe are divine) were not perfectly and absolutely united in every conceivable way except the physical. It would be blasphemous if I believed there was a single shred of contention or one-upmanship among the three. It would be blasphemous if I worshipped one and not the others.

Is blasphemy too strong a word?

Would it be if I applied it to you?

If God says there are no gods besides me, shouldn't we believe that?

Yes, we should, and I do. You previously stated, "When I use the title "God," it is in reference to the Godhead." I believe that when He said there were no other gods except Him, He was speaking of the Godhead as a whole, and there is only one Godhead.

If we go back to John 1:1, though, we see that the Word is identified as "God." We see, too, that He is described as being "with God." When someone is alone, he is not described as being "with" himself. So, in the beginning we have two individuals mentioned who are with one another. They are both called "God." Even though there is only one "Godhead," the two persons mentioned in John 1:1 are referred to in the singular as "God." One person who is being referred to as "God" is with another who is being referred to as "God." So, when you asked if I believed in "one God spiritually" and "three Gods physically," I agreed, having in mind John 1:1.

Once again, it has to be a terms barrier, because when I wrote what I did, I honestly thought you would agree.

Well, I'm honestly surprised that you thought I would agree that my beliefs are blasphemous, because when interpreted as I have explained in the previous paragraph, they are clearly quite biblical.

All I was looking for were the Bible verses you would use. No explanation would be necessary. I wasn't asking you to explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Bible verses would have sufficed. The Bible speaks for itself.

You know what, Katie? If the Bible speaks for itself, we wouldn't be talking now. There would be no Religious Forums website and no Christianity forum on City-Data. There would not be more than 30,000 different Christian denominations, the vast majority of which claim that "the Bible speaks for itself." I would be very happy to have this discussion with you, but for me, Bible verses are not going to suffice. That "terms barrier" is always looming, as you know, and we would not get very far without discussion.

You never asked me the question of whether divine person was a synonym for god. You told me it bothered you that people sidestep that question, but you never asked the question to me directly.

If I didn't, I am seriously losing it! I could have sworn I asked you several times. I'm not going to go back and look for the instances, though. You're willing to answer it now; that's all that matters.

So let's see if I can answer your question.

Yes, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct, divine persons

Here's how Strongs defines divine.

2304 theíos (an adjective, derived from2316 /theós, "God") – divine, manifesting the characteristics of God's nature.

2304 /theíos ("divine nature") ties God's essence to His self-manifestation, permitting all people to know Him by observing His attributes.

Here's what the thesaurus says.

Main Entry: god
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: supernatural being worshipped by people
Synonyms: Absolute Being, All Knowing, All Powerful, Allah, Almighty, Creator, Divine Being, Father, God, Holy Spirit, Infinite Spirit, Jah, Jehovah, King of Kings, Lord, Maker, Yahweh, daemon, deity, demigod, demon, divinity, holiness, idol, master, numen, omnipotent, power, prime mover, providence, soul, spirit, totem, tutelary, universal life force, world spirit

Main Entry: divine
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: godlike, perfect
Synonyms: all-powerful, almighty, ambrosial, angelic, anointed, beatific, beautiful, blissful, celestial, consecrated, deific, deistic, eternal, exalted, excellent, glorious, godly, hallowed, heavenly, holy, immaculate, magnificent, marvelous, mystical, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, rapturous, religious, sacramental, sacred, sacrosanct, sanctified, spiritual, splendid, superhuman, superlative, supernatural, supreme, theistic, transcendent, transcendental, transmundane, unearthly, wonderful

I'd say I'd agree with all of this. Going back to this statement, though:

2304 theíos (an adjective, derived from2316 /theós, "God") – divine, manifesting the characteristics of God's nature.

I believe there are three persons/individuals/beings each of whom manifests the characteristics of God's nature. I believe that the title "God" can be applied with equal validity to all three. So are all three "God"? Yes. Is each one divine? Yes. Are they in any way distinct from one another? Yes.

What words are trinitarians forbidden to use?

It's not so much the individual words, but phrases. You can say, "The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God." But there is just one God.

How is leaving the word "divine" out of the phrase "distinct persons" misleading? Are you sure it's intentional? I can tell you that from my perspective, I never gave it a thought. I just assumed you would know that when I say distinct persons, you would know without my having to say it that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are divine.

It's possible that the reason people sidestep your question is because they don't see the point of it. They have no idea where you're going with it or what your purpose is for asking. They may think you are setting a trap for them. I don't know. Why don't you explain?

Being used to having people setting traps for me, I know how frustrating that is. I wasn't trying to set any traps. I thought that analyzing the words would help you see my thought process and see how I came to my conclusions.

Is "divine persons" a synonym for god? No, I don't think so, at least it's not for me. However, according to the thesaurus, divinity is a synonym for god, and you can see the synonyms for divine.

Satan, in the Bible, is called the god of this world. I could not substitute "divine person" for god when applying it to Satan.

Nor could I. So you've raised a good point there.

Honestly, it all comes down to how it is applied.

I see "divine persons" as a way to describe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don't see it as a substitute for the word god.

Again, nuances of a word. Much depends on how it's being used.

In a recent post to kolibri, I said the following:

Personally, I think we get far too hung up on the words we use. We should work harder to comprehend the concepts behind the words, and try to genuinely understand what a person means when he or she picks a word we wouldn't have chosen. Instead, we seem to look for words we can use to tear each other's posts apart. We seem to be trying not to not understand one another.

We may use different terminology (for example, where you'd say "divine person," I'd say "god.") Regardless of the words I may have used, I would hope that you able now better able to understand the concepts I've tried to explain.

Okay. I tried. Not saying I'm right. I'm sure there are many angles to this which I hadn't thought of. Now it's your turn. Tell me how you see it.

It seems to me that when all of what both of us have said is analyzed, examined and considered, our main difference of opinion concerns whether there are two physical persons in the Godhead and one non-physical person or one physical person in the Godhead and two non-physical persons. Would you agree or disagree?

 

[JM2C]

Hmmm...does that mean that you believe that good works are unnecessary? Are good Christian works all just "filthy" then, so you have an excuse not to do them?


Are you hedging because the religious system you support has very little to show for the "works" that must accompany the professed faith?


If "faith without works is dead".....where does that leave Christendom? (James 2:18-26)



The "works" that they should be renowned for are those advocated by Jesus....where is the "witness" of the churches? (Matt 10:11-15) They are strangely silent, whilst Jehovah's people are known the world over for being out in their preaching work in every nation. (Matt 24:14; 28:19, 20)

Who are "doing the will of the Father" by following through on the commands of his son, rather than just talking about it?

The truth is, this work cannot be done on a global scale by Christendom because there is no unity of belief there, nor is there any will on the part of the people to carry out the assignment. No one knows what the kingdom is, so how can they preach about it? It can only be done with the backing of Jehovah's holy spirit.


When was the last time any church member called at your door to offer you the "good news of the kingdom"? (Acts 5:42; 20:20) In my experience the answer is "never".

First you have to recognize who the Son is the John 1:1 before you preach to every nation.

Jn 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Let me ask you a simple question. Have you ever tried to read KJV, ASV, NASB versions by yourself? What I meant is, just read either one of those versions by yourself. They won’t let you do it, right?

 

[Kolibri]

• In the beginning was the Word. This fits Col 1:15. Jesus was the very beginning of creation so he was at the beginning.

• and the Word was with God. This also fits Prov 8:22,30 with Jesus being what is known in this verse 'personified wisdom' and a "master worker" being the "earliest of [Jehovah's] achievements of long ago". He was there with God.

nothing wrong with these clauses. as written they fit the rest of scripture w/o any real effort.

 

[Kolibri]

First you have to recognize who the Son is the John 1:1 before you preach to every nation.

Jn 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Let me ask you a simple question. Have you ever tried to read KJV, ASV, NASB versions by yourself? What I meant is, just read either one of those versions by yourself. They won’t let you do it, right?

There is absolutely no law against reading other bibles. our free app JW Library automatically includes the KJV and ASV along with the Byington. I am often comparing a verse rendering with these to see what other people are commonly reading.

None of this changes the fact that translators have often ignored Greek grammar when translating the 3rd clause of John 1:1 but have used the same grammar rule in other places where their theology did not disagree.

 

[Unification]

Getting back to Trinity and a more accurate verse of scripture from archaic times:

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of "every creature."

Places a whole different perspective on things.

 

[moorea944]

• In the beginning was the Word. This fits Col 1:15. Jesus was the very beginning of creation so he was at the beginning.

• and the Word was with God. This also fits Prov 8:22,30 with Jesus being what is known in this verse 'personified wisdom' and a "master worker" being the "earliest of [Jehovah's] achievements of long ago". He was there with God.

nothing wrong with these clauses. as written they fit the rest of scripture w/o any real effort.

Well, a few things I would like to comment on. "In the beginning was the Word", yes, it is talking about God's Word in the beginning. It is not really talking just about Jesus yet, though Jesus is in God's plans right from the beginning. . It is about God and His Words, His plans, reasons, thoughts. Then in verses 14 all of His plans and words are now made flesh.

And Col 1v15 is telling us that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. It is NOT talking about the "first" creation with Adam. Paul tells us that this is the "second" creation with Jesus. He is the firstborn of the second creation, the firstfruits of the resurrection.

Prov 8 is about God's wisdom. Jesus didnt pre-exist, he is not in this chapter. Bible tells us that he was born.

 

[Unification]

Well, a few things I would like to comment on. "In the beginning was the Word", yes, it is talking about God's Word in the beginning. It is not really talking just about Jesus yet, though Jesus is in God's plans right from the beginning. . It is about God and His Words, His plans, reasons, thoughts. Then in verses 14 all of His plans and words are now made flesh.

And Col 1v15 is telling us that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. It is NOT talking about the "first" creation with Adam. Paul tells us that this is the "second" creation with Jesus. He is the firstborn of the second creation, the firstfruits of the resurrection.

Prov 8 is about God's wisdom. Jesus didnt pre-exist, he is not in this chapter. Bible tells us that he was born.

Revelation 19:13King James Version (KJV)
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

 

[Unification]

Revelation 19:13King James Version (KJV)
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

1 John 5:6-8King James Version (KJV)
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

[Unification]

1 John 5:6-8King James Version (KJV)
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

John 1:9King James Version (KJV)
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

 

[moorea944]

Revelation 19:13King James Version (KJV)
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Yes, Jesus is the word of God. Im not saying that he isnt. I'm saying that in verse 1 is "logos". God's logos was in the beginning. Your saying it was only Jesus. I know that Jesus is the Word, the Bread, the Light, yes. But... in this verse or verses, it's God's plans.....

 

[Unification]

Yes, Jesus is the word of God. Im not saying that he isnt. I'm saying that in verse 1 is "logos". God's logos was in the beginning. Your saying it was only Jesus. I know that Jesus is the Word, the Bread, the Light, yes. But... in this verse or verses, it's God's plans.....

You're so close.

 

[cataway]

They won’t let you do it, right?

your really not a clever as you think you are

 

[JayJayDee]

Matthew 7:6-8
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

TRUTH

Shouting will not make truth into fiction.

I guess it boils down to who is the dog and who is the swine then eh?
Who is the one casting the pearls? I see the reverse to what you do.

In your literal and carnal interpretations of an evil God .. You see the killing of children and destroying countries, murder. In the eyes of a spiritual man, he sees the Lord conquering and destroying the kingdoms of sin we create inside of us.
Yet, after God destroys all of this, there is mention of the heart, and the pride, and conceit, and haughty looks being brought low.... Imagine that.

In your literal and carnal eyes you see a Brutal God needing humans to cut up and shred animals and flinging their guts and blood everywhere. Common sense to even the natural will reveal that an Almighty God does not need animal blood to cleanse, even temporarily, humans' and this is sickening. The altar to God of every human is built internally. The sacrifice of the human's beastly and carnal, fleshly ways. In Isaiah, God clearly reveals its an abomination to kill literal animals and asks, who told you to do this?

You see fruit growing in the literal earth. I see fruit growing in the body.

You see literal temples and literal houses and literal beds and literal holy land. I see the temple built within, the house and bed as the body. I see the human holy, you see literal land holy.

You see a God externally. I see God inside of me.

You see a literal devil and Satan destroying people. I see mankind destroying and devouring themselves and each other.

I see Christ teaching me, sanctifying me because He is inside of me, you see something external and are still waiting on something external.

I hold myself accountable, and am thankful for the destruction of my mind, and being punished, disciplined, humbled... And pray always to bring me lower and the Lord increasing within me. You exalt yourself, are full of conceit of a puffed up mind, and you couldn't discern at this point if you're suffering righteously or if you're trying to be taught a lesson and spoken to.

The problem with religion is everyone thinks they are filled with the Holy Spirit/Ghost... When they are not. They think they have eternal life before finding the truth about themselves and of the Lord. Need the truth before having the life. Not opposite. I can give numerous scriptures of the Lord cleansing people in Matthew and in the "gospel" accounts only for that human to go back to their old house(body) of sin and run to mankind and be corrupted by mankind doctrine rather than sticking with God. Confessing Jesus with your mouth means nothing. Hitler and millions of others have so too.

There is nothing wrong with examining oneself and holding oneself accountable or thinking they have the Lord when they don't, this isn't anything to be ashamed of. Repent and seek properly. Don't die in vain.

One foot in a church building and one foot in the world. (Both are vain anyhow.) Then they have the man doctrine of a murder, Calvin... Once saved always saved. Evil lies. One thinks that they are saved when they're not.

One argues over the sabbath day, if it's Saturday or Sunday. This is irrelevant. The sabbath day is not a literal day, it's when one finds rest on the Lord, every day is rest in the Lord. There is nothing holy about literal days of the week.

And in all of that, you did not answer a single question I asked you?
All I see is justification for your point of view....nothing more.
You keep repeating the same sorry tale, but none of it aligns with the teachings of the Master. His teachings are the only ones I can accept.

Christendom has twisted God and his Christ into something they never were. You twist them even further.

Why do I use the "archaic" bible of King James? Because it's closest to the originals. Every bible has the touch of man and additions that don't belong. The further they are translated and changed.... And altered to suit mankinds particular beliefs and man doctrine... The more they become further from the truth.

Then the spirit is failing to guide you. It is common knowledge that language changes over time and when we do not keep up with the changes, we end up with archaic words that are now the opposite of the originals. Even the KJV has been revised many times to alter the meaning of words that had changed meaning in English. But it hasn't changed enough. Its bias in translating passages in favor of the trinity is nothing short of disgusting.

No one needs a bible anyhow. It's a book. God lives in us. His words should all be instilled and scribed in our hearts and minds and souls. "It is written" .... Law of God written IN the heart.

So when Jesus said "it is written" he was lying. He didn't need to depend on his Father's word to back up a single thing he said, did he?

The apostles too treated God's word with contempt, just like you do.....?

You are being led by a very destructive spirit and I hope you will see that your lone prophet status is not going to have any success. Your cries in the wilderness are going unneeded for a very good reason. Your words are not truth. What is "inscribed on hearts and minds" that comes from God, does not throw out thousands of years of the teachings of a God who does not change.

If we were to believe you, everything changes. We have to throw away God's word in favor of what you say....in favor of what you personally believe. Who else believes it? Can I ask you that? If the answer is "no one" then I really think you need to re-evaluate your position. Who are you attracting?
Sorry, your version simply doesn't wash.

 

[Kolibri]

Well, a few things I would like to comment on. "In the beginning was the Word", yes, it is talking about God's Word in the beginning. It is not really talking just about Jesus yet, though Jesus is in God's plans right from the beginning. . It is about God and His Words, His plans, reasons, thoughts. Then in verses 14 all of His plans and words are now made flesh.

And Col 1v15 is telling us that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. It is NOT talking about the "first" creation with Adam. Paul tells us that this is the "second" creation with Jesus. He is the firstborn of the second creation, the firstfruits of the resurrection.

Prov 8 is about God's wisdom. Jesus didnt pre-exist, he is not in this chapter. Bible tells us that he was born.

The tying of Jesus to Prov 8 is not really proof in of itself that Jesus had a pre-human existence. You are correct in that it does not explicitly say personified wisdom is Jesus. However there are other verses that show that Jesus life did not begin with his conception as a human, but much, much earlier. Here are a few examples:

"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." - John 1:3

"Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man." - John 3:13

"for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me." - John 6:38

"What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?" - John 6:62

"He went on to say to them: 'You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world." - John 8:23

"Jesus said to them: 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me." - John 8:42

"Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been." - John 8:58

"No, but [Jesus] emptied himself and took a slave's form and became human. (Lit., "came to be in the likeness of men.")"- Philippians 2:7

 

[Kolibri]

Getting back to Trinity and a more accurate verse of scripture from archaic times:

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of "every creature."

Places a whole different perspective on things.

what is a "creature"? Is it not a "created being"? Does that not make angels "creatures" made of spirit?

Did not Ezekiel 10:15 call cherubs "creatures"?

 

[katiemygirl]

="Katzpur, post: 4170253, member: 2540"]
You know what, Katie? If the Bible speaks for itself, we wouldn't be talking now. There would be no Religious Forums website and no Christianity forum on City-Data. There would not be more than 30,000 different Christian denominations, the vast majority of which claim that "the Bible speaks for itself." I would be very happy to have this discussion with you, but for me, Bible verses are not going to suffice. That "terms barrier" is always looming, as you know, and we would not get very far without discussion.

I don't have time to answer all of your post. I'll try to get to it tomorrow if I can. The next two to three weeks will be very busy for me. Our son from VA is coming to visit for a week beginning the 22nd. The following week, my inlaws will be here for a week. So this week I'll be doing major cleaning, cooking and yard work. Yipppeeee!

The Bible absolutely does speak for itself, especially in matters of salvation, worship, the structure of the church and christian living. Granted, some things are difficult to understand, the topic of this thread, for example, however, it is not a reason to divide. Imho, God gives us freedom to understand difficult concepts in different ways because each of us is at a different level of maturity, but He expects us to remain unified. Somehow, men have been unable to do that. Instead, they split and start new groups. That way, they can do things their way.

The Bible isn't what causes denominations. You yourself said God is not the author of confusion. Denominations begin when someone thinks their way is better than God's way.

Tell me. Did God ever say that the structure of the church should be a heirarchy of Pope, Archbishops, Cardinals and so on? No. Did God ever say babies should be baptized? No. Take a good close look at any denomination's practices. Do you see things happening within that group that God never commanded? Yes! Who came up with these things? Men did. Why? Power, greed, money, control. Consider the history of the catholic church. It all seemed like such a small departure in the beginning. Look at what it evolved into. It has reached critical mass, to the point where it is hardly recognizable when compared to the 1st Century church. I had someone yesterday on another thread, tell me Mary is co-mediator, co- redemptrix. Really?

The Bible is not the problem, which really is what you're suggesting. Man is the problem. He is always trying to improve on God's word.

It is up to each of us to study God's plan of salvation, the work He wants His followers to do, the way He wants us to worship Him, and the way He wants his church organized.

Once we learn these things, we need to find a congregation that is applying those teachings, and then affiliate ourselves with that group. We need to be able to weed out the teachings of men like Popes, Mariology, and infant baptism.

This Scripture came to mind when I read what you wrote above.

"For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." 1 Cor. 11:19

It seems to me that when all of what both of us have said is analyzed, examined and considered, our main difference of opinion concerns whether there are two physical persons in the Godhead and one non-physical person or one physical person in the Godhead and two non-physical persons. Would you agree or disagree?

Yes I would. But a bigger gulf exists between us, and that is our views of the Bible. The trick is going to be how we can have discussions without hurting one another. That's going to be a challenge. I would very much like to be your friend, but I think it's going to take a lot of hard work on both of our parts.

 

[katiemygirl]

your really not a clever as you think you are

JM2C works very hard, as does Kolibri, at supporting what they believe with Scripture. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort they both put into their posts. Unlike you who drops in now and again with nothing to say except for telling someone they are wrong. It would be nice to see you put the same effort in that JM2C and Kolibri do. It would be nice to see you actually use Scripture.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't have time to answer all of your post. I'll try to get to it tomorrow if I can. The next two to three weeks will be very busy for me. Our son from VA is coming to visit for a week beginning the 22nd. The following week, my inlaws will be here for a week. So this week I'll be doing major cleaning, cooking and yard work. Yipppeeee!

Well, I'm going to be having an "eventful" week myself. The day after tomorrow (i.e the 17th), I am going in for a hip replacement. I keep hearing how hips are no big deal -- especially in comparison to knees. I'm really not particularly nervous, but I'll be glad when it's over. So anyway, I will be reading and posting tomorrow. After that, it may be a week; it may be two. Who knows?

The Bible is not the problem, which really is what you're suggesting. Man is the problem. He is always trying to improve on God's word.

In no way am I suggesting that the Bible is the problem. I know you think we Mormons don't have much use for the Bible, but that simply is not true. We love the Bible. As a matter of fact, in our adult Sunday School classes, we spend twice as much time studying the Bible than we do the Book of Mormon. I disagree that man is "always trying to improve on God's word." I like to give man a bit more credit than that. I believe that most Christians genuinely do want to correctly understand God, their relationship to Him and what He expects of them. I believe denominations arise when a group of like-minded individuals believe that their interpretation of scripture is the right one and everyone else's is the wrong one. I read a book once a few years ago. It was called "How Wide the Divide?" It was a noted Evangelical scholar and a noted LDS scholar in conversation with one another. When I first picked up the book to read it, I thought, "Wow! Robinson (the LDS scholar) is going to have Blomberg (the Evangelical scholar) for lunch. I can hardly wait to see this go down!" Well, was I ever in for a surprise. These two gentlemen (and I do mean "gentlemen") had the most fascinating discussion on several different topics. Neither one of them seemed to be trying to pick apart the other's beliefs. They simply wanted to understand each other's perspective. Perhaps spurred on by their respect for one another and their tolerance for their differences of opinion, I ended up understanding the Evangelical position far better than I ever thought possible. Even though Blomberg did not convince me that his church's interpretation was right, I could see for the first time that it was at least a possible interpretation -- and not just some off-the-wall statements which couldn't be backed up scripturally. I realized that he actually could quote passages that made his point. I would be willing to guess that most Evangelical Christians reading the book were probably just as surprised that Robinson was able to quote passages that supported the LDS interpretation.

Yes I would. But a bigger gulf exists between us, and that is our views of the Bible.

It's nowhere near the gulf you have imagined it to be, Katie. Nowhere near.

The trick is going to be how we can have discussions without hurting one another. That's going to be a challenge. I would very much like to be your friend, but I think it's going to take a lot of hard work on both of our parts.

I'm willing to work at it if you are.

 

[JayJayDee]

First you have to recognize who the Son is the John 1:1 before you preach to every nation.

Well, that's the thing....we have already addressed who the son is from John 1:1. The Word (Logos) is Jesus and the Word became flesh. But the Word was not "ho theos". (THE God) The Word was "with THE God, but the Word was just "theos". (A god, a mighty or divine one)

You trinitarians keep ignoring this very important piece of information.
Calling Jesus "a god" was in no way making John 1:1 differ from what is said in the original Greek nor was it making the Word equal with his Father.
John 1:1 does not say what trinitarians want it to say. In fact it presents a different God altogether to the one Jesus himself worshipped. Nowhere does Jesus ever claim to be God Almighty....not once.

Jn 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Again a blind quote. Where does it say "whoever believes that the Son is God, has eternal life"? Where does it say "rejecting the Son" means not believing that he is a god of equal standing with the Father, who has no equal? You read into scripture things which are not there.
We accept Jesus for who the scriptures say he is, not what an apostate church made him into 400 years after he died.

Let me ask you a simple question. Have you ever tried to read KJV, ASV, NASB versions by yourself? What I meant is, just read either one of those versions by yourself. They won’t let you do it, right?

As Kolibri has mentioned, we can read any version of the Bible we like. I quote from different translations on Bible Gateway way more often that I quote from the NWT.

The NWT online has the KJV and other translation contained in it for verse by verse comparison. It has the Kingdom Interlinear as well.
Where does this " they won't let you" nonsense come from?

I studied the KJV with Jehovah's Witnesses almost 45 years ago because it was the only Bible I had and the NWT was not released at that time.
I asked what Bible I should have and they said, any Bible I chose. That was the Bible I studied and became a JW from reading and studying it for two years. So there goes your theory. You actually believe all the rubbish people say about us, don't you? That worked for the people who opposed Jesus too you know. Propaganda is designed to make truth appear to lies and vice versa. It is nothing new. It's worked for the devil for centuries.

 

[cataway]

JM2C works very hard, as does Kolibri, at supporting what they believe with Scripture. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort they both put into their posts. Unlike you who drops in now and again with nothing to say except for telling someone they are wrong. It would be nice to see you put the same effort in that JM2C and Kolibri do. It would be nice to see you actually use Scripture.

ah , but when I do ,I do use the scriptures correctly . if we could get you to stand back and see what the scriptures say and stop tiring to make them say what you want to say would help a lot.
fact is ,Jesus is not God . Jesus answers to God.

John 13:16


As God was greater than Jesus in sending him, so Jesus was greater than his disciples in sending them. Jesus made this comparison when he said to them: “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” (John 20:21, AV) So the Greater One sends the one who is less.