A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[RedFan]

I speak English. Col 2.9 dwells in, like contents in a container.

You said it.

LOL

You truncated my quote, eliminating what follows "I just don't see," as a attempt at humor. Fine, I get the joke. But you also truncated Col. 2:9 by pointing to only the word "dwells." And that's not funny at all; it's foolish. The whole verse is "for in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." And that couldn't happen before he had a body. So it isn't a description of the pre-incarnate Son who "emptied himself" (Phil. 2:6), but rather to the resurrected Christ!

That's why your "dwells in, like contents of a container" analogy limps. Show some Scriptural support for Paul using "dwells" in connection with the pre-incarnate Son who "emptied himself," if any you have. Otherwise it's time to jettison the "container" analogy.

 

[RedFan]

You can disagree all you want, Its recorded history the holy spirit was added to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople. Its undeniable fact of reality.

I agree. That's not what I challenged. Rather, I challenged your comment that "no trinity was ever known or served by a true follower prior to Catholicism adding the holy spirit to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople." Some true followers did. If you think the doctrine sprang fully grown as though from the head of Zeus at the Council, you are mistaken. It had a history before Constantinople made it official dogma.

Let's do each other the courtesy of reading each other's posts with care before responding, shall we?

 

[Wrangler]

You truncated my quote, eliminating what follows "I just don't see," as a attempt at humor. Fine, I get the joke. But you also truncated Col. 2:9 by pointing to only the word "dwells." And that's not funny at all; it's foolish. The whole verse is "for in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."

Double down on foolishness. It was funny - admit it. Not an attempt. Actually funny that I quoted you admitting you do not see! LOL

Regarding truncating a verse; I do it all the time so no one can get distracted by other parts that I am not drawing attention to. Jesus is explicitly stated to be the son of God over and over again in Scripture. This proves he is not YHWH as sons are not their fathers. No amount of eisegesis will overcome that.

No amount of denying the fullness of deity "dwells" in Jesus - like a container, where he is capable of emptying what dwells in him. (By that way, that's a great argument for NOASAS) The visual is as clear as could be.

"Dwells" is not a synonymous with "is." If you dwell in a cave, it does not mean the cave is you! You know this to be true. A container is different from its contents. And it is obvious that your deepest, darkest desire is to get me on a question I cannot answer AS IF it has anything to do with this Christian denomination being relentlessly attacked by fellow Christians at post #1202.

 

[RedFan]

"Dwells" is not a synonymous with "is." If you dwell in a cave, it does not mean the cave is you! You know this to be true. A container is different from its contents.

Absolutely true. But my point was that "dwells" was never applied by Paul to any "contents" of the pre-incarnate Son. So Col. 2:9 puts no gloss on how we are to understand Phil. 2:6-7. Thus, you still have not given an adequate response to my post #1,185.

 

[gordon7]

Jws are no different to anyone else engaging in dispute, debate, contention, strife, what belief in Christ is shown in any of it..



James 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

 

[gordon7]

All churches are corrupt now as it is the falling away and end.

If God wanted men sincere they would be, so Jws satay believing as they do, so do other churches.

There is no answer in these discussions, hey are only revealing they are without that understanding.



2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

 

[Wrangler]

Absolutely true.

You agree that dwell does not mean is. Yet, you continue to argue a futile point?!

So Col. 2:9 puts no gloss on how we are to understand Phil. 2:6-7. Thus, you still have not given an adequate response to my post #1,185.

Obviously, we disagree. You are trying to impose a tortured take on Phil 2:6 by denying, not only the "gloss" from Col 2:9 but the repeated and explicit proclamation in Scripture that Jesus is NOT YHWH as he is the son of YHWH - as we all are. See John 1:12.

 

[gordon7]

Believing on the name of Jesus Christ is evidenced in the Lords holy apostles, but many follow the subtilty of the devil, they did not care we are told we shall have weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

2 Peter 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

 

[Wrangler]

@RedFan,

Rev 1:5 says Jesus is the first born of the dead. First means the beginning of a series of like to follow. Is this true?

In talking to trinitarians, it’s obvious they haven’t the first clue of the significance of the man Jesus - even though it is explicit Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. “

If Jesus is not only, merely and just a man then he is not the first of us to be raised from the dead and we have no such proof of God’s righteousness.

Scripture repeatedly says Jesus is a man. The first man to be raised from the dead in a glorified body. That’s good enough for me. Why is that not good enough for you?

 

[gordon7]

Do we see the bible as words or works to believe in, words are forums they are as good a belier as anyone on forums could ever show.



James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

[gordon7]

Do you prefer to continue debate instead of stop that before judgement day, you really want the end of the world coming and you are not doing BETTER..



Philippians 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.


James 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

2 Peter 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[RedFan]

You agree that dwell does not mean is. Yet, you continue to argue a futile point?!

"Dwell" does not mean "is." It means to inhabit a physical space and make one's home there. God can "dwell" in a physical space or a physical person. Prior to his incarnation, the Son was neither. So your notion that what the Son "emptied himself" of (Phil. 2:6-7) was God "dwelling" within him is an impossibility.

 

[RedFan]

First means the beginning of a series of like to follow. Is this true?

Not necssarily. My wife and I have one child, a son. He is our first born. None are to follow.

First doesn't require a second or a subsequent. It's possible for something or someone to be the first AND the last, the alpha AND the omega (so to speak).

 

[RedFan]

Scripture repeatedly says Jesus is a man. The first man to be raised from the dead in a glorified body.

I don't know a single Christian who would disagree, Trinitarians included. We all agree that Jesus was a man. Trinitarians just don't agree that he was only or merely a man (although he was the first to be raised from the dead in a glorified body).

 

[Jack]

Saying "Let US make man in OUR image" isn't the creation event.

Seriously?

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

 

[Berean]

Saying "Let US make man in OUR image" isn't the creation event. That's a statement about what is planned. The actual creation even was performed by YHWH, the Father. I think where you are taking a blind leap of faith is assigning specific persons to the "US" where none are stated. There is no mention of a pre-existent being known as the Word or Son of God or God the Son, Immanuel, etc in the Old Testament.

You must be affiliated with the Christadelphians, Concordant, Oneness, Iglesia ni Cristo, Church of God, General Conference or a derivative thereof?

 

[Cassandra]

Abner kneeland-1822 a Greek scholar translated from the Greek lexicons-He compared Greek to English side by side in his translation to prove to the world a god was correct. He was unbias. 19 other translations minimum had a god at John 1:1, 3 had was divine,( Moffat, Goodspeed, Schoenfield) 1 had was godlike. All rejected by trinity religions so were never used and all but disappeared for the most part.
You listen to trinity renditions of what the Greek says at John 1:1.The recorded undeniable facts of true God worship history by Israel and the recorded fact that no trinity was ever known or served by a true follower prior to Catholicism adding the holy spirit to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople.
No trinity was served by a true follower after that point either-Why? Because there is no trinity. The Abrahamic God= a single being God= YHVH(Jehovah)

I looked him up and got that he was a pantheist, and didn't see anything about him being a Greek scholar.
I showed you a new testament greek website.
Trinity religions haven't disappeared.
And I say you listen to antitrinitarian renditions of John 1:1

Council of Nicaea (325 CE): The first major ecumenical council held by the early church was primarily convened to address the Arian controversy, which questioned whether Christ was divine in the same sense as God the Father. The Nicene Creed, formulated at the council, affirmed that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father, thereby marking a foundational stance against Arianism, which posited that the Son was a created being and not divine in the same way as the Father. Thanks, Chat.

 

[Berean]

I don't know a single Christian who would disagree, Trinitarians included. We all agree that Jesus was a man. Trinitarians just don't agree that he was only or merely a man (although he was the first to be raised from the dead in a glorified body).

There are several views on the subject of God.

• Trinitarians - 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 there are different views on what exactly is the trinity.
• Oneness Pentecostals -who believe in 1 one, who has manifested himself in 3 persons, not that there are 3 persons who make up God.
• Churches of God - These are the followers of Herbert W. Armstrong (e.g. Worldwide Church of God, United Church of God, Restored Church of God, etc.) They are more Bi-unitarian. Believe the Godhead is God and Jesus.
• Christadelphians - Groups like the Christadelphians believe that Jesus did not pre-exist as the logos in heaven but came into being as the baby Jesus, born human.
• Jehovah's Witnesses - Sacred name groups like the JW's believe that God is one, his first creation was the Logos (Jesus) and through the Logos created all things.

The main difference between these groups and the trinitarians, is that Trinitarians believe Jesus was a God-Man on earth. While the others believe he was just fully man, fully human.

 

[gordon7]

Then because you are seen to be only interested in debate you HAVE FULFILLED:



Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[RedFan]

There are several views on the subject of God.

• Trinitarians - 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 there are different views on what exactly is the trinity.
• Oneness Pentecostals -who believe in 1 one, who has manifested himself in 3 persons, not that there are 3 persons who make up God.
• Churches of God - These are the followers of Herbert W. Armstrong (e.g. Worldwide Church of God, United Church of God, Restored Church of God, etc.) They are more Bi-unitarian. Believe the Godhead is God and Jesus.
• Christadelphians - Groups like the Christadelphians believe that Jesus did not pre-exist as the logos in heaven but came into being as the baby Jesus, born human.
• Jehovah's Witnesses - Sacred name groups like the JW's believe that God is one, his first creation was the Logos (Jesus) and through the Logos created all things.

The main difference between these groups and the trinitarians, is that Trinitarians believe Jesus was a God-Man on earth. While the others believe he was just fully man, fully human.

I assume you meant to limit your list of "several views on the subject of God" to views held by those self-identifying as Christian, correct? (For example, Muslims have views on the subject of God. So do Jews. They don't make the list.).

With that qualification, I should add that Trinitarians of various stripes outnumber the other four categories combined, by nearly 100 to 1.