1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Oeste, Jul 16, 2020.

  1. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    Obviously not all will agree, but from my study of the scriptures, comparing translations and looking into Greek and Hebrew terminology and history, I have concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses are on the right track. So yes, it is meaningful to recognize that many will pray to saints, believing they will carry their prayers to the trinity perhaps (?) and believe that a person goes to heaven or eternal torture in death based on what others have told them, even misusing and not peering into the scriptures, not putting them all together. And being misdirected throughout the centuries.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    What original? That's #1. #2 and very meaningful and important to this discussion is Luke 13:2. See what you get from that.
     
  3. SLPCCC

    SLPCCC Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2020
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +50
    Religion:
    Spiritual Christian

    This scripture comes to mind, Matt. 13: 14,15
    • Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

    I understand that's why I don't get frustrated. Cognitive dissonance. . . :cool:
     
  4. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    So then think of all the prayers to the saints. And celibacy for priests and nuns, cognitive dissonance? Misdirection?
     
  5. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    It wasn't?? Are you sure?
     
  6. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,369
    Ratings:
    +421
    Religion:
    Christian
    This is a serious, unethical misquote by the Watchtower.

    Had this simply been a misprint or mistake the Watchtower would have corrected future reprints of their "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" brochure and/or posted a correction on their website.
    .
    The Watchtower slurs itself when it engages in this type of irresponsible behavior. An ellipsis should never be used to change or alter the original meaning of the author.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,369
    Ratings:
    +421
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well there you go Witnesses....someone believes you "...are on the right track."

    That's exactly how we started this thread...with the assumption the WT and the NWT "...are on the right track". But then we got derailed simply because of a few questions.

    If Jesus's hand picked disciple is claiming Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1 why is Jesus no longer claiming to be "a god" by the time John 10:33 roles around? Bonus points if you can tell us why "there is evidence for 'a god'" at John 10:33 when the WT plainly tells us there is none (see the OP), and also why the Jews considered anyone making themselves "a god" to be a blasphemy of the Divine Name, punishable by immediate stoning?
     
  8. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    2,470
    Ratings:
    +379
    Religion:
    Christian
    What you wrote, by leaving out the "in a strictly ontological reference", actually demonstrates the deception practised by the WT in their "Should You Believe in the Trinity" magazine. It gives a totally wrong idea of what I actually said.
    The WT is good at this sort of deception and can do it in such a way as to make it seem OK to people who are members of the religion and as SLPCCC says, they have also done that in the Bible by additions to and changes of the text. The example I see with SLPCCC is Col 1 where "other" is added a number of times.
    The scholars say that additions like this are OK if it does not change the meaning of the text and the WT says their additions of "other" do not change the meaning of the text because all it does is show that Jesus did not create Himself and is indicated as necessary to avoid confusion because Jesus is said to be part of the creation in verse 15.
    The truth is that the second reason above shows that it does change the meaning of the text to suggest that Jesus was created. However IF Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive and shows Jesus to be part of the creation, that does not mean that Jesus was created as it can mean that the uncreated prehuman Jesus stepped into the creation when He became a man.
    That it does mean that the prehuman Jesus was uncreated is told to us by the lack of "other" in the original text.
    ALL THINGS were created through Jesus. No exceptions, as John 1:3 tells us.
    Another deception that the WT uses is the redefinition of the word "firstborn" and ignoring the lexicon meanings of the word and it's use in the OT in texts about Israel being God's firstborn and about God appointing Jesus to be firstborn (Ps 89:27) (realising that if "firstborn" means only "first one born" it is something that someone cannot be "appointed" to) This sort of redefining of words is seen in other places also with the WT, as with soul, spirit, hades, sheol, resurrection etc. It is as if the WT thinks it has a right to change and add to the Bible and redefine words.
    All of this sort of redefining is based on the idea that Christendom theologians and language people have been dishonest and/or deceived about the real meanings of words. So it is OK to say that Christendom is dishonest about things where no dishonesty is obvious but if that is suggested about obvious dishonesty by the WT it is not acceptable.
    The WT then goes on to say that "through" indicates that Jesus was agent in God's creation.
    But of course this flies in the face of the original text where "ALL THINGS" are said to have been created through Jesus. So the WT needs to add "other" between ALL and THINGS to change the real meaning of the original text.
    In regards to the word "through" in such texts:
    NIV Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
    NWT Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that the one for whom and through whom all things exist,
    NIV Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
    To him be the glory forever! Amen.
    NWT Romans 11:36 Because from him and by him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.
    In the above quotes I guess it is commendable that the NWT does not alter the text of Heb 2:10 and change "through" to another word even though they do so in Romans 11:36.
    However ignoring that, I wonder why God is not seen as an "agent" in creation if all things came into existence 'through" Him.

    This was certainly a big and unexpected return post to your small post.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    Here's something for you: (I was just reading about Jesus when he was a babe.) Thinking about this and the trinity, and "a God," (1) - do you believe that there always were three godpersons in heaven? (2) If so, was Jesus "in heaven" as one of the three "godpersons"?
     
  10. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    It was an accurate quote. Never does the Bible use the word trinity. Never does it say that all three godpersons are equal. Never - ever. In fact the entire quote puts more of a lid on the contrived trinity doctrine. NOT in the Bible.
     
  11. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    271
    Ratings:
    +211
    Religion:
    JW
    No one should expect a Trinitarian publication to have no Trinitarian statements in it. This, like so many other shots by detractors, is a serious unethical attack by itself.

    The Trinity brochure has stated in the heading for this quote: "Trinity" in the Bible? To say that they are being dishonest for leaving out Tertullian's use of this word is dishonest itself. The ellipsis does not change the original meaning of the author. The statement means what it says for this author, and the fact that he added other information has no bearing on the topic of "Trinity" in the Bible?
     
  12. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,369
    Ratings:
    +421
    Religion:
    Christian

    No, it was not an accurate quote as it misrepresented the quoted source. It's an unethical use of an ellipsis. Whether or not something is found or not in the bible is immaterial in this instance as we are not discussing a quote from the bible, but a "quote" from the Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
     
  13. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,369
    Ratings:
    +421
    Religion:
    Christian
    If someone here were actually attacking a Trinitarian publication for not having Trinitarian statements I would agree. But I don't see anyone attacking Trinitarian publications for this. I'm not following your line of reasoning here.


    Hi Tigger,

    The quoted source's whole point was that the revelation of God ("Trinity") is implicit in the OT and explicit in the New. Whether or not Witnesses agree with this point is immaterial. What is material is that when you quote a source the author's intent and conclusion remain intact. That is not something you don't find in the WT's Trinity brochure.

    In other words, when you're quoting a source, you're sparing the reader from looking up and reading the source material itself. This is why it becomes incumbent upon the quoting party to be responsible in their use of the ellipsis, quotes or whatever literary device they are using to preserve the intent of the author. The Trinity brochure does none of that.

    Headings, like 'Trinity in the Bible?' do not affect the WT's responsibility to quote and cite sources accurately. When we read the Trinity brochure we get one meaning from a quoted source and when we read the source material (that is, if you can find it, given the poor citations) we get something completely different and at odds with the alleged quotation!

    When we read a quoted source, we should be able to draw the same inferences from the quote as if we had read the actual source. Anything less is a misrepresentation of the source, or a subreption:


    Definition of subreption

    : a deliberate misrepresentation also
    : an inference drawn from it

    I think the comments here expose some of the challenges faced when talking with Jehovah Witnesses and their supporters. The idea this type of quoting was okay because it had no bearing on the the WT heading they were under ('Trinity in the Bible?') was certainly a new one to me.
     
  14. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    It certainly was not. If I were not a believer in God (I was not always a believer) and I read the FULL QUOTE, I'd have thought it was a bunch of hooey. Now I see
    the full quote for what it is-- Dishonest.
    it is is absurd. What truly is dishonest is the idea that the "trinity" is a Bible based idea. It is not.
     
  15. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    No. The trinity of 3 equal godpersons is in no way implicit in the Bible.
     
  16. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    Again -- the trinity as explained by classical trinitarians is nowhere in the Bible. Nowhere, absolutely not.
     
  17. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    No, it did not misrepresent the source. The actual meaning was there, and again -- nowhere does the Bible teach a trinity.
     
  18. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    Ontologically speaking, the trinity is still not true. Now if you or anyone wants to believe that it is promoted "ontologically" in the Bible, you go right ahead. As for me, however, I have seen the Bible does not speak of a trinity of 3 godpersons, all equal to the other, always existing, three of them, without beginning. Three. Not one or two, but THREE persons. Nope, sorry, ontologically or actually in the Bible, it just isn't so.
     
  19. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    You mean ontologically authentic?
     
  20. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,069
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Religion:
    Christian
    True Believer asked you, "You seem to be able to see that the scriptures prove he was YHWH manifest in the flesh. Yet you still believe in the Trinity don't you?"
    Since you said you believe in the trinity kind of no matter what, can you say if, in any way (ontologically or not), you believe there were three godpersons always without beginning of the three yet the three god"persons" said to compose one "being." Thank you.
     
Loading...