A Form of godliness

[Wrangler]

The JW TWIST! Serve God, not the WatchTower lies, leading JW's to HELL FIRE.

It's so funny that you think this is a reasonable rebuttal. LOL

 

[Jack]

It's so funny that you think this is a reasonable rebuttal. LOL

You need to call an emergency meeting at Kingdom Hall to edit your NWT that says Jesus is God and Hell is "everlasting fire".

 

[face2face]

There is a great irony in this OP....Paul teaches a warning for those how hold to myths such as the Trinity, which we know has its source in the darkness of men Isaiah 8:20 - A time will come when this "form" of godliness will be removed from the earth and truth and sincerity increased. Timothy was taught how sharp the Word of God can be in the right hands 2 Timothy 3:16 and how its active function in the mind of a believer can bring a person to salvation. It will be those who are revealed to be in the "form" of Christ who have a living hope; undefiled and reserved in Heaven waiting for his appearing who will be saved.

The exhortation to encourage and edify is upon us in a post Christian world where the things of God are falling through mens fingers and the master of the house will be here soon to find what?

A house divided? slothful servants beating on one another?

False teachers will feel the heat of a consuming fire when Christ comes in Yahwehs fierce judgements.

F2F

 

[PinSeeker]

Hmmm. I wonder if Pinseeker believes if another person "seconds" my post...

Well, there are some here who (regretfully) agree with what you are saying, Wrangler, but that's not what we're talking about... :)

He's plural - in this 1 verse...

Yes, in Genesis 1:26, and that's all it takes, but on top of that ~ and this was my point ~ God refers to Himself in the singular in the very next verse, Genesis 1:27. Neither can be discounted.

He's singular in <5,000 verses...

Yes, a singular pluralism, firmly established from Genesis 1 and resonating over and over and over again throughout Scripture. Sure.

Well, I guess you win.

See, to me, it's not about winning. But okay... :)

No need to address Scripture with Scripture in how you rationalize one verse supersedes 5,000 verses.

There is no "superceding" to it, but rather not ignoring one or the other, as you (and possibly others here) insist on doing.

 

[PinSeeker]

I already stated in two posts, at least by implication, that the use of 'form' is used in both verses, and yes one is a false form in 1 Tim and the other in Phil, is a genuine form.

Well, 2nd Timothy (not first), 2 Timothy 3:5. But surely you would agree that Paul, in 2 Timothy, is not talking about physical traits but rather a quality ~ godliness ~ rather than the physical embodiment of ~ that He literally was/is ~ both God and man, which is what he says in Philippians 2.

So what is your exact point PinSeeker as I seem to agree with you if you can come through and explain the use of form in Phil as a 'true thing itself' idea a bit...?

Maybe what I said immediately above helps, but it seems to me that "true thing itself" is abundantly clear.

I already know I will not agree with you on this point, although I might be surprised by your answer.

Sure, well, and so be it. Grace and peace to you, APAK.

 

[Wrangler]

Yes, in Genesis 1:26, and that's all it takes, but on top of that ~ and this was my point ~ God refers to Himself in the singular in the very next verse, Genesis 1:27. Neither can be discounted.

No one is discounting them. Only trinitarians speculate on who God is talking to regarding "our image."

Yes, a singular pluralism

Mystical dualism. Either the subject is singular (one) or plural, not both.

 

[Wrangler]

There is no "superceding" to it, but rather not ignoring one or the other, as you (and possibly others here) insist on doing

Yes, you are superceding your speculations above explicit Scripture to the contary. See GE 1:6 - He (singular) divided light from darkness. This is the 1st verse that undermines the notion of the trinity. God is NEVER referred to as plural, always singular.

 

[Rich R]

Yes, a singular pluralism, firmly established from Genesis 1 and resonating over and over and over again throughout Scripture. Sure.

Isa 37:38,

And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god (elohiym), that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.​

Judg 11:24,

Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god (elohiym) giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.
​

1Kgs 11:5,

For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess (elohiym) of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
​

2Kgs 1:2,

And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that [was] in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baalzebub the god (elohiym) of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.
​

Nisroch, Chemosh, Ashteroth, and Baalzebub are all called elohiym. All plural. Does this prove they are all trinities?

 

[PinSeeker]

No one is discounting them...

No one except you and your cohorts here. Ignoring is a more apt description, really.

Only trinitarians speculate on who God is talking to regarding "our image."

Um, you mean who God is talking about? "Let us make man in Our image..." There is nothing to speculate about, Wrangler. It is what it is. Or, maybe you really do mean who God is talking to. In that case, God is the only One present at creation, and He does refer to Himself, "us" and "our" (rather than "me" or "my"). And we know that this "us" and "our" consists of three Persons, the Father, the Son (John 1:2), and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2).

PinSeeker: a singular pluralism​

Mystical dualism.

LOL! Not at all. It is what it is. :) When I talk about the Green Bay Packers, I'm talking about all fifty-three men on the singular team's roster. :) Football is neither "mystical" or "dualistic." :) Likewise, neither is the Godhead, the triune Jehovah. :)

Either the subject is singular (one) or plural, not both.

God said what He said, referring to Himself as "us" and "we" in one brief sentence (Genesis 1:26) and Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, referred to Him as a singular "Him" in the very next (Genesis 1:27). You can deny it all you want, but to no avail; It is what it is.

Round and round we go... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Isa 37:38,

And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god (elohiym), that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.​

Judg 11:24,

Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god (elohiym) giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.
​

1Kgs 11:5,

For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess (elohiym) of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
​

2Kgs 1:2,

And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that [was] in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baalzebub the god (elohiym) of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.
​

Nisroch, Chemosh, Ashteroth, and Baalzebub are all called elohiym. All plural. Does this prove they are all trinities?

If ~ in order ~ Nisroch, Chemosh, Ashtoreth, and Baalzebub were referred to as "they" or "them" in ~ in order ~ verse 37 or 39 of Isaiah 37, verse 23 or 25 of Judges 11, verse 4 or 6 of 1 Kings 11, or verse 1 or 3 of 2 Kings 1, then it would prove that they were all at least two persons.

If, on the other hand ~ in order ~ Nisroch, Chemosh, Ashtoreth, and Baalzebub were referred to as "he"/"she" in ~ in order ~ verse 37 or 39 of Isaiah 37, verse 23 or 25 of Judges 11, verse 4 or 6 of 1 Kings 11, or verse 1 or 3 of 2 Kings 1, then it would prove that they were all one person.

But we don't know, because no distinction or clarification of any sort ~ much less anything like the one on Genesis 1:26-27 ~ is made. But because that clarification is made in Genesis 1:27, we know it to be true regarding Jehovah. :)

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Rich R]

If ~ in order ~ Nisroch, Chemosh, Ashtoreth, and Baalzebub were referred to as "they" or "them" in ~ in order ~ verse 37 or 39 of Isaiah 37, verse 23 or 25 of Judges 11, verse 4 or 6 of 1 Kings 11, or verse 1 or 3 of 2 Kings 1, then it would prove that they were all at least two persons.

If, on the other hand ~ in order ~ Nisroch, Chemosh, Ashtoreth, and Baalzebub were referred to as "he"/"she" in ~ in order ~ verse 37 or 39 of Isaiah 37, verse 23 or 25 of Judges 11, verse 4 or 6 of 1 Kings 11, or verse 1 or 3 of 2 Kings 1, then it would prove that they were all one person.

But we don't know, because no distinction or clarification of any sort ~ much less anything like the one on Genesis 1:26-27 ~ is made. But because that clarification is made in Genesis 1:27, we know it to be true regarding Jehovah. :)

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

Very thin evidence for the trinity. Virtually all scholars, trinitarians included, understand that Gen 1:26 refers to the Divine Council (angels, archangels, seraphim, etc). Plus verse 27 uses the singular noun for "created"

 

[PinSeeker]

Very thin evidence for the trinity.

It was wasn't meant to serve as evidence, really, but only to show the non sequitur nature of your question.

Virtually all scholars, trinitarians included, understand that Gen 1:26 refers to the Divine Council (angels, archangels, seraphim, etc).

Ah yes, "scholars"... :) It is funny how many, regardless of their background and accomplishments, still remain blind when it comes to God's Word, but that is the natural human condition, after all. And opening the eyes of the blind is itself a work of God, along with unstopping deaf ears, making the lame to leap like a deer, and the mute tongue to sing for joy (Isaiah 35:5-6).

Hey, so back to Genesis... So God, in that verse, says, "Let us make..." This is God's act of creation, and specifically here His creation of human beings. Are you saying what these "scholars" that you're referring to seem to be saying, that angels, archangels, seraphim, and what must be a multitude of other beings are co-Creators with God? Surely not. The "us" cannot mean anyone besides God, because that would obviously contradict Genesis 1:1, that "(i)n the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." But hey, if you want to jump into that pit with them, Rich, go ahead...

...verse 27 uses the singular noun for "created"

Indeed. Yes, it says, "So God created man in His own image"... As indicated by that word "so," Rich, verse 27 follows from verse 26; it is the action He took after having made the statement He made immediately preceding, which is, of course, "Let us make man in our image..." I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but you're making my point ~ which is not really my point but that of Moses, and ultimately (since all Scripture is God-breathed) God Himself.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[face2face]

Hey, so back to Genesis... So God, in that verse, says, "Let us make..." This is God's act of creation, and specifically here His creation of human beings. Are you saying what these "scholars" that you're referring to seem to be saying, that angels, archangels, seraphim, and what must be a multitude of other beings are co-Creators with God? Surely not.

It's a wonderful truth you have stumbled over there.
This is the most intriguing subject to discuss when you look at the Bible as a whole all its revelation try to find once instance where God Himself is said to have been directly involved with Creation or mankind.
He is a Selfless God you see - that's important when considering this research - He manifests Himself through beings such as the angels and you.
Recently, I challenged my family to find a Scripture which shows God as being directly involved in the affairs of men and they couldn't find one!
however, my eldest Son came very close but admitted there was a lack of evidence.
F2F

 

[Wrangler]

t is funny how many, regardless of their background and accomplishments, still remain blind when it comes to God's Word

Except those that agree with you, right?

 

[L.A.M.B.]

 

[L.A.M.B.]

These scriptures above tell us the type ppl that have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

If it were not for God within us Satan would out-trick us all.

We are to examine ourselves DAILY and take OUR CROSS likewise so as to make our standing in God sure !

 

[Rich R]

It was wasn't meant to serve as evidence, really, but only to show the non sequitur nature of your question.


Ah yes, "scholars"... :) It is funny how many, regardless of their background and accomplishments, still remain blind when it comes to God's Word, but that is the natural human condition, after all. And opening the eyes of the blind is itself a work of God, along with unstopping deaf ears, making the lame to leap like a deer, and the mute tongue to sing for joy (Isaiah 35:5-6).

Hey, so back to Genesis... So God, in that verse, says, "Let us make..." This is God's act of creation, and specifically here His creation of human beings. Are you saying what these "scholars" that you're referring to seem to be saying, that angels, archangels, seraphim, and what must be a multitude of other beings are co-Creators with God? Surely not. The "us" cannot mean anyone besides God, because that would obviously contradict Genesis 1:1, that "(i)n the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." But hey, if you want to jump into that pit with them, Rich, go ahead...

Indeed. Yes, it says, "So God created man in His own image"... As indicated by that word "so," Rich, verse 27 follows from verse 26; it is the action He took after having made the statement He made immediately preceding, which is, of course, "Let us make man in our image..." I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but you're making my point ~ which is not really my point but that of Moses, and ultimately (since all Scripture is God-breathed) God Himself.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

That pit image reminds me of an abandoned rock quarry we used to jump into when I was a kid. About a 60' jump into freezing water followed by a 30 minute climb back to the top. It's a wonder we all survived. Thanks for the memory. :)

Scholars or not, there are several places in the scriptures where God convenes a council of spirit beings. He asks for their advice but of course He makes the final decision.

I know there are many people who are lazy and don't want to put forth the effort required by a scholarly work into understanding the scriptures. They just want to take the easy road and stick with tradition. But that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with actual scholarship. Who do you think translated the Greek/Hebrew into English? It was scholars!

 

[Behold]

Either you are incredibly out of touch and don't see the correlation between Jesus being God and the trinity doctrine, or you are a nitpicker extraordinaire. .

You are fairly intelligent, don't you think?
So, put that to use, and realize that there is the Trinity Doctrine, and then there is something else.
I teach that the Word, John 1, is Jesus the only Begotten, as the 'WORD made flesh". = 1 Timothy 3:16
Its not that difficult to understand, but you need to own a bible to do the research.
You can do it, RichR.
Just focus.

 

[marks]

There is no "superceding" to it, but rather not ignoring one or the other, as you (and possibly others here) insist on doing.

This shows how differently people approach Scripture. We have to find the truth that holds every passage true, while in harmony with each other. There is no playing one against the other, as so many see to see this.

When someone doesn't hold out for the harmony, they can end up denying the plain saying, in this case, that God wasn't speaking to a co-creator when He said, "Let us make man . . ."

Much love!

 

[Rich R]

You are fairly intelligent, don't you think?
So, put that to use, and realize that there is the Trinity Doctrine, and then there is something else.
I teach that the Word, John 1, is Jesus the only Begotten, as the 'WORD made flesh". = 1 Timothy 3:16
Its not that difficult to understand, but you need to own a bible to do the research.
You can do it, RichR.
Just focus.

What was the Word (logos) before it became flesh?

1 Tim 3:16,

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
​

Virtually all Biblical scholars, trinitarian included, admit that the word "God" is a forgery. It should be "...he who..."