MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: "I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us."-John 17:20, 21.
Union of purpose here ... but that doesn't mean that the Bible never says that Jesus and the Father are one in substance. Read John 1 again without the JW glasses on.
And read Matthew 28:19 to see how God is depicted as a triune being.
There are so many verses in the NT pointing to Jesus being God that you'd have to either be in denial or just an ignorant fool to reject what those verses actually say.
Quote:
Thus, when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity-the closest bond possible between two persons. If you and your father saw eye to eye on something you might be inclined to say "My Father and I are one."
If you're the son of a human, doesn't this make you a human? Or does it make you a dog?
Think!
A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God's Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. (Daniel 12:4) It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as "proof" of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.
With regarding your scriptural example, what does it mean to be baptized
"in the name of the Father"? It means that the baptismal candidate recognizes our heavenly Father's office and authority. Jehovah God is thus acknowledged as our Creator, "the Most High over all the earth," and the Universal Sovereign.-Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 40:28; Acts 4:24.
To be baptized
"in the name of the Son" means to recognize Jesus' office and authority as God's only-begotten Son. (1 John 4:9) Those qualified for baptism accept Jesus as the one through whom God has provided "a ransom in exchange for many." (Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6) Baptismal candidates must also acknowledge the "superior position" to which God has exalted his Son.-Philippians 2:8-11; Revelation 19:16.
What is the significance of baptism
"in the name of the holy spirit"? This indicates that the baptismal candidates recognize that the holy spirit is Jehovah's active force, used in various ways in harmony with his purpose. (Genesis 1:2; 2 Samuel 23:1, 2; 2 Peter 1:21) Those qualifying for baptism acknowledge that the holy spirit helps them to understand "the deep things of God," to carry on the Kingdom-preaching work, and to display the spirit's fruitage of "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control."-1 Corinthians 2:10; Galatians 5:22, 23; Joel 2:28, 29.
In summary Jesus did not mean or say that he, his Father, and the holy spirit were coequal. Rather, those baptized recognize Jehovah as the Life-Giver and Almighty God, to whom they dedicate their life. They accept Jesus as the Messiah and the one through whom God provided a ransom for believing mankind. And they realize that the holy spirit is God's active force, to which they must submit.
But I suspect you'll wish to seek other scriptures to back up your words. Let me save you the trouble...
Trinitarians also use Col. 1:15, 16. In the
Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971) this scripture is read as "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"?
(1)Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah's family of sons.
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh's family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
(3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17, according to the
Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is
pan'ta, an inflected form of
pas. At Luke 13:2, the
Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971) renders this "all . . . other";
The Jerusalem Bible (1966) reads "any other";
The New English Bible (1970) says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in
The New English Bible (1970) and Philippians 2:21 in
The Jerusalem Bible (1966).) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son,
the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition assigns the same meaning to
pan'ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
Trinitarians also use Revelation 1:1; 3:14 which reads "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . 'And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: "The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek,
ar·khe'] of God's creation."'" (
King James Version (1611; as printed in 1942),
Catholic Challoner-Douay Version (1750; as printed in 1941),
The New Testament (1941; as printed in 1947), and
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was 'the beginner of God's creation,' that he was its 'ultimate source.' But Liddell and Scott's
Greek-English Lexicon lists "beginning" as its first meaning of
ar·khe'. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God's creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to
Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971),
The New English Bible (1970), and
The Jerusalem Bible (1966), the one there speaking is said to be "created."
Trinitarians may use Micah 5:2 which is read in the
King James Version (1611; as printed in 1942) as "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
Catholic Challoner-Douay Version (1750; as printed in 1941) reads: "his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, does that make Jesus the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying "days of eternity,"
Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971) renders the Hebrew as "ancient days";
The Jerusalem Bible (1966), "days of old";
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition, "days of time indefinite." Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
Some Trinitarians like to use Isaiah 9:6 which reads, "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a "Mighty God." But does not "Mighty God" with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called "Mighty," there can be only one who is "Almighty." To call Jehovah God "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position. The fact of the matter is only Jehovah is consider Almighty God and there are literally dozens of scripture to prove this. Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." Exodus 6:2-3 "And God went on to speak to Moses and to say to him: "I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty."
You mentioned John 1:1. In the
King James Version it read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly shows that "the Word" is Jesus. (John 1:14) Since the Word is called God, however, some conclude that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God. Bear in mind that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek. Later, translators rendered the Greek text into other languages. A number of Bible translators, though, did not use the phrase "the Word was God." Why not? Based on their knowledge of Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase "the Word was God" should be translated differently. How? Here are a few examples: "The Logos [Word] was divine." (
A New Translation of the Bible) "The Word was a god." (
The New Testament in an Improved Version) "The Word was with God and shared his nature." (
The Translator's New Testament) According to these translations, the Word is not God himself. Again, instead, because of his high position among Jehovah's creatures, the Word is referred to as "a god." Here the term "god" means "mighty one."
Worth noting McClintock and Strong's
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are "insufficient" to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together.)
In my comments everything is backed up multiple scriptures, not only from the primary bible we use but also MANY other bibles. You backed up all your words with only two scriptures. My rule of thumb is to let scripture interpret scripture. The Bible is its own best interpreter and has more than enough scriptures to refute the trinity doctrine. (Daniel 12:4) You only saw a small sample above...
Last edited by kxmode on 26 Jan 2011, 12:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
26 Jan 2011, 11:16 am
