The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[Marymog]

Did you notice that I did not call you dishonest or ignorant for contradicting your own quote?

I did call you dishonest. The reason I called you dishonest is because you were being....dishonest!

dishonest defined: characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness

You did not fully quote what I wrote which took away the context of what we were discussing. To do that is not being honest which causes people not to trust you.

Not sure why you added the ignorant word in there. Were you considering calling me ignorant and then decided not to and then point out how you didn't call me ignorant even though you think I am ignorant?

Curious Mary

 

[GEN2REV]

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

Nice post, Tigger.

In your opinion, do you think this last paragraph tracks accurately with John 1:1 and John 1:14?

I can see the case for Jesus claiming Himself to be subordinate to the Father like in John 6:57, but Him being a creation of the Father? It doesn't seem to line up with 1:1 and 14.

What say you?

 

[Illuminator]

Did you notice that I did not call you dishonest or ignorant for contradicting your own quote?

Marymog is calling your statement dishonest, not you as a person. To illustrate:

"You are an idiot" attacks the person. (ad hominum).
"That statement is idiotic" confronts the statement, not the person.
A good moderator knows the difference.

What's dishonest to me is assuming what you are trying to prove. "for contradicting your own quote" is a baseless assumption. No scholarly primary or secondary source evidence to support anti-trinitarian wierdisms. It seems the JW's run the other way when their deceitfulness is exposed. The matter is too complex to be explained on a street corner. Worse, is ripping a quote totally out of context and using it as a weapon. It's typical WTS methodology. Tigger's signature exemplifies this point. Maybe he likes being spanked.

 

[DavidB]

I did call you dishonest. The reason I called you dishonest is because you were being....dishonest!

dishonest defined: characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness

You did not fully quote what I wrote which took away the context of what we were discussing. To do that is not being honest which causes people not to trust you.

Not sure why you added the ignorant word in there. Were you considering calling me ignorant and then decided not to and then point out how you didn't call me ignorant even though you think I am ignorant?

Curious Mary

Marymog is calling your statement dishonest, not you as a person. To illustrate:

"You are an idiot" attacks the person. (ad hominum).
"That statement is idiotic" confronts the statement, not the person.
A good moderator knows the difference.

I appreciate your comment and for all I care, she can call me anything she wants. But in #221 she acknowledged that she called me dishonest. Obviously I disagree and reject her criticism. And in #185 she wrote that “tigger 2 was dishonest.” Maybe you can help her see that when she gets personal it only weakens her position especially on a forum that is called Christianity Board.

 

[tigger 2]

marymog wrote: "tigger 2 is being a bit dishonest in his post. Tigger only quotes parts of his reference (Catholic Encyclopedia - “St. Ignatius of Antioch”) and leaves out the part that doesn't fit his narrative. He then adds a quote from anti-trinitarian 'scholar' and unitarian, Alvan Lamson."

It is an oft-used trinitarian device to claim that someone has dishonestly quoted by stopping at a point that clearly answers the point without proceeding to the excuses and opinions which follow. Of course a trinitarian source will attempt to defend the trinity.

If Lamson was truly a unitarian, I apologize for calling him trinitarian and will change my studies to reflect that. To deny that he was an influential writer and imply that, not being trinitarian, he must be a liar is unfair.

marymog wrote: "Here is what Tigger quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.” [Bolding is mine]

The emphasized part says it all.

marymog wrote: "Here is what Tigger "accidently" left off from that quote. The very last line: "The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius.' The article then lists the "spurious letters" of which the Letter to the Ephesians is not listed. The Epistle to the Ephesians is considered by scholars as one of the seven authentic letters written by Ignatius."

Spurious simply means the originals were not written by Ignatius. It does not mean that those considered "authentic" were not changed so much by later copyists that they are not trustworthy.

marymog wrote: "Here is the full chapter (18) from which I previously quoted to support the Trinity doctrine: Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. Where is the wise man? Where the disputer? Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water."

As we previously pointed out in the ANF, Ch. 18, there are two columns. The left column is called either the short version or the long version (they aren't labelled). The right column is (short or long) another version. Your translation is from the left column, but the righthand version says: "For the Son of God...." So, if I were of the ilk which makes personal accusations, I could say someone is lying here. But I don't believe you are. Someone obviously did centuries ago, however.

{To be continued as soon as I am able)

marymog wrote: "In regards to New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967. The Catholic Church has never denied that the Trinity doctrine came into being later. It is true that the Apostolic Fathers and ECF's never remotely approached such a mentality or perspective in regards to the Trinity doctrine. They were writing about the Trinity, they just didn't have a 'word' for it or it wasn't 'defined' by The Church for several years. That doesn't mean it was created out of whole clothe by The Church."

So, how difficult is it for a writer to say 'The Father, Jesus, and the HS are equally the one God'? Or 'Jesus is equal to the Father and the HS'? Even the NT scholars had the same 'problem.' How could it not be defined, if true?

John 17:3 tells us it means eternal life to know the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ and the HS. Eternal life!

There is at least one trinitarian creed that says those who don't believe their trinity creed are cursed.

How could it not be found in the Bible itself. Or in the ANF if we had the correct manuscripts.

 

[tigger 2]

Nice post, Tigger.

In your opinion, do you think this last paragraph tracks accurately with John 1:1 and John 1:14?

I can see the case for Jesus claiming Himself to be subordinate to the Father like in John 6:57, but Him being a creation of the Father? It doesn't seem to line up with 1:1 and 14.

What say you?

"Firstborn of creation." "Only-begotten Son of God." Created as Wisdom (Most if not all Ante-Nicene Fathers considered Wisdom at Prov 8:22-30 to be the Son of God).

I doubt that anyone will ever carefully exam my studies of John 1:1c, but at least I have proven to myself after very careful and exhaustive study: nearly all trinitarian translators have mistranslated John 1:1c. Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity and Examining the Trinity and Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c.

As for John 1:14, I have no objection to those who say that the Logos came to the earth as Jesus the man.

 

[GEN2REV]

"Firstborn of creation." "Only-begotten Son of God."

Any idea why God calls Jesus, Israel and Ephraim His Firstborn son?

Not a trick question; sincerely curious myself.

Colossians 1:15
Exodus 4:22
Jeremiah 31:9

 

[Illuminator]

No, it is not only little ol' Marymog that thinks that. A MAJORITY of Christians think that. Why do you reject it?

Because the slave masters of the Watchtower Society tell them what to think.

The worst example of dishonesty amongst Watchtower literature regards the Trinity. When attacking the Trinity doctrine, the Watchtower resorts to a multitude of deceptive tactics, including the straw man technique of misdefining the Trinity, misquoting sources, and presenting specifically false information.

The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are "three persons in one God". At times, the Watchtower uses the straw man technique of misdefining the Trinity doctrine as "three Gods in one", such as in the following quote, so as to attack this incorrect definition.

"The disgusting idolatry of the religions of Christendom and pagandom has been set aside by Jehovah's restored people. Their worship is not distributed to three gods in one, the so-called godhead of some mysterious Trinity, but they are united as the one people who worship the one God, Jehovah.
Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 p.23
​

When discussing the Trinity, they have almost never mentioned the concept of economic and ontological equality, yet this is key to understanding the Trinity. Nor do they discuss Modalism, which is an alternate doctrine about the nature of God that is believed by many Pentecostals. Watchtower discussion melds Trinitarian and Modal concepts into one, and then attacks the inaccurate hybrid straw man that they themselves have created.

The Watchtower also presents the history of the Trinity incorrectly, attempting to lead its followers to believe the Trinity did not develop until centuries after Jesus, and under pressure from Constantine. Should You Believe in the Trinity? p.7 states:
"...history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter."
It goes on to make the inaccurate claim that the Antenicene fathers, including Justin Martyr, Iraneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen were against the Trinitarian concept, yet each of these people had an instrumental part in the development on the Trinity. Page 5 claims "this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity." Yet Tertullian stated;

"The connection of Father and Son, of Son and the Paraclete [Holy Spirit] makes three who cohere in a dependent series. And these three are one thing; not one person." (Against Praxeas ch.25)"The Son of God is identical with God. The Spirit of God is God." (Against Praxeas ch.26)
See The Watchtower and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers by Michael J. Partyka for an in-depth article with full source quotes of the partial quotes used in the Watchtower brochure Should you Believe the Trinity. In each case it is readily apparent that the Watchtower Society has distorted what the early Church Fathers were attempting to say.

Should You Believe in the Trinity? also makes classic use of ellipses to hide words like "but", "however" and "therefore" in order to twist the point being made by the source. Quotations are only partially referenced, making it difficult and time consuming to locate the original quote for verification purposes. The following partial Watchtower quotes are compared with the original quote to highlight how significantly the Watchtower is prepared to misrepresent sources to convince followers of their viewpoint.

Source
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethic, James Hastings, Trinity, p.461

WTS Trinity Brochure
At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. (ti pp. 6-7)

Full Quote
"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference."
+++

Source
The Triune God, Edward Fortman

WTS Trinity Brochure
Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."" (ti p.6)

Full Quote
"They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. "
+++

5 MORE DISHONEST QUOTES HERE: Examples of misquotes, lies and deception in Watchtower publications
.
.

 

[Aunty Jane]

OK, so leaving all extra biblical material and the accompanying hate speech out of the discussion, what does God’s word have to say? Using just the Bible can a trinity be proven?
Where can we find a direct statement from God, or his Son, or the Holy Spirit, that each are separate and equal parts of Almighty God?

Does the Bible agree with those who teach that?

Matthew 26:39 RS.... “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not separate and distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:18-18 RS.... “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” ( The testimony of “two witnesses” was in God’s law, so the Father testified about about his son confirming that Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Matthew 20:20-23 RS....“The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (If Jesus was truly both God and man, not one or the other—wouldn’t that privilege be his to give?)

Matthew 28:18 RS...”And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Does this suggest equality? Why does God have to “give” an equal part of himself “authority” over anything.....? He already has all authority.)

Revelation 3:12 RS....”He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” (Since this was part of the Revelation, which was given to Jesus by his Father, and then to an angel to give to John, how is it that the Father needed to give it to Jesus if they are one and the same “God”? And why has Jesus called his Father “my God” even in heaven? Can God have a God?
What new name does Jesus have, since YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah) is the only name that is ever given to God in the Bible?)

John 17:3 RS....”And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (So here again we have Father and son as separate beings, and Jesus himself saying that “knowing” Yahweh as “the only true God” was the way to eternal life. He did not include himself in that description.)

There is more, but this is enough, IMO....

People are going to believe whatever they want to about this issue, but it is not JW’s who have changed the nature of God....that took place as part of the foretold apostasy (corruption of Christianity) and only made official doctrine over 300 years after Christ died. The Bible has no clear statement about God being part of a three part entity who could be in three different places at the same time, and who could all talk to each other.....no such God existed in Jewish religious belief....and Jesus was Jewish.

In the final analysis, it will be Jesus Christ himself who will rule on this issue.....we will all know then who was telling the truth and who is promoting the lie.

 

[DavidB]

OK, so leaving all extra biblical material and the accompanying hate speech out of the discussion, what does God’s word have to say? Using just the Bible can a trinity be proven?
Where can we find a direct statement from God, or his Son, or the Holy Spirit, that each are separate and equal parts of Almighty God?

Does the Bible agree with those who teach that?

Matthew 26:39 RS.... “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not separate and distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:18-18 RS.... “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” ( The testimony of “two witnesses” was in God’s law, so the Father testified about about his son confirming that Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Matthew 20:20-23 RS....“The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (If Jesus was truly both God and man, not one or the other—wouldn’t that privilege be his to give?)

Matthew 28:18 RS...”And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Does this suggest equality? Why does God have to “give” an equal part of himself “authority” over anything.....? He already has all authority.)

Revelation 3:12 RS....”He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” (Since this was part of the Revelation, which was given to Jesus by his Father, and then to an angel to give to John, how is it that the Father needed to give it to Jesus if they are one and the same “God”? And why has Jesus called his Father “my God” even in heaven? Can God have a God?
What new name does Jesus have, since YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah) is the only name that is ever given to God in the Bible?)

John 17:3 RS....”And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (So here again we have Father and son as separate beings, and Jesus himself saying that “knowing” Yahweh as “the only true God” was the way to eternal life. He did not include himself in that description.)

There is more, but this is enough, IMO....

People are going to believe whatever they want to about this issue, but it is not JW’s who have changed the nature of God....that took place as part of the foretold apostasy (corruption of Christianity) and only made official doctrine over 300 years after Christ died. The Bible has no clear statement about God being part of a three part entity who could be in three different places at the same time, and who could all talk to each other.....no such God existed in Jewish religious belief....and Jesus was Jewish.

In the final analysis, it will be Jesus Christ himself who will rule on this issue.....we will all know then who was telling the truth and who is promoting the lie.

Let me add to your evidence

Who is Jesus' God? Eph 1:17 John 20:17 Rev 3:12
Who Is greater than Jesus? John 14:28
Who is the head of Jesus? 1 Cor 11:3
Who created Jesus? Col 1:15 / Rev 3:14
Who created all things through Jesus? Col 1:16
Who sent Jesus? John 4:34
Who taught Jesus? John 8:28
Who approved Jesus? Matt 3:17
Who did Jesus pray to? John 17:1 / Matt 26:39
Who resurrected Jesus? Acts 2:32 / Acts 3:15
Who exalted Jesus? Acts 2:33 / Phil 2:9
Who gave Jesus a name? Phil 2:9
Who gave Jesus authority? Matt 28:18
Who gave Jesus the Revelation? Rev 1:1
Who gave Jesus his disciples? John 17:6
Who gave Jesus a kingdom? Daniel 7:13, 14

The answer? The one who Jesus called “the only true God.” (John 17:3) The same God who revealed himself throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah art the most high over all the earth.”
Psalms 83:18

 

[Illuminator]

@Auntie Jane and @DavidB will be ignored for endlessly preaching WTS lies and distortions.

DavidB sez:

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah art the most high over all the earth.”
Psalms 83:18

One of the most significant flaws in the New World Translation is the inclusion of the word Jehovah in the New Testament. Of the many thousands of early New Testament fragments, not a single one includes God's name. Including Jehovah means that many Scriptures have their meaning changed.

One Scripture that quite clearly refers to Jesus, Romans 10:13, is changed to Jehovah in the Watchtower Bible.

Romans 10:13 "For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.""
This has an important effect, as the Watchtower attempts to use this Scripture to prove that only Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved.

"We stand now at the brink of the greatest tribulation of all, when Jehovah's storm wind will sweep wickedness from the face of this earth, clearing the way for a paradise of eternal peace. Will you be one who "calls on the name of Jehovah" in faithfulness? If so, rejoice! You have God's own promise that you will be saved.-Romans 10:13."
Watchtower 1997 Dec 15 p.21
​

An examination of the Emphatic Diaglott, published by the Watchtower Society shows that the word used in this passage is not YHWH but Kyrios (κύριος) - Lord.

Just prior to this verse, Romans 10:9 states, "Jesus is Lord (Kurios)". It follows that Romans 10:13 refers to Jesus, and identifies Jesus as the requirement for salvation.

"Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved? No. Millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation."
Jehovah's Witnesses, Who are they? What do they believe?(2002) p.29
​

Not content with mis-translating the Bible, the Watchtower criticizes other religions that don't use the word Jehovah through deceptive quoting of their sources.

"By and large, Christendom's churches have distanced themselves from God's name. For example, the Revised Standard Version states in its preface: "The use of any proper name for the one and only God … is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." Watchtower 2013 Mar 15 p.24"That version omitted the name, reversing the policy of the editors of the American Standard Version of 1901. Why? The preface says: “The use of any proper name for the one and only God . . . is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.”
Watchtower 2015 Dec 15 p.10
​

What the Revised Standard Version quote says in full carries a different meaning backed by solid reasoning.

"The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version:
(1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and
(2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." (ncccusa.org as of 12 Mar 2016)

 

[Marymog]

OK, so leaving all extra biblical material and the accompanying hate speech out of the discussion, what does God’s word have to say? Using just the Bible can a trinity be proven?
Where can we find a direct statement from God, or his Son, or the Holy Spirit, that each are separate and equal parts of Almighty God?

Hey Jane,

We can't leave "extra biblical material" out of the discussion because every person reads all the vs's you just posted and ADDS their interpretation to it. You read those vs's and interpret it YOUR way. The men of the CC read it a different way. The men of the Baptist church read it a different way etc etc and all of it is "extra biblical". Even the writings of the Apostolic and ECF's are "extra biblical. It takes MAN to interpret His word. Did He provide a list of books that are in the Bible you keep quoting? No, He did not. It was thru the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to MAN AND the tradition of MAN that we have the 27 books of the NT that you keep quoting from. Your theory is not workable.

Where can we find a direct statement from God, or his Son, or the Holy Spirit, that IMMERSION only is the proper way to baptize?

Keeping it real...Mary

 

[Marymog]

I appreciate your comment and for all I care, she can call me anything she wants. But in #221 she acknowledged that she called me dishonest. Obviously I disagree and reject her criticism. And in #185 she wrote that “tigger 2 was dishonest.” Maybe you can help her see that when she gets personal it only weakens her position especially on a forum that is called Christianity Board.

Oh goodness David. If you or anyone else on here does not want to be called dishonest then don't be dishonest. I qualified my remarks with the facts and the fact is there was dishonesty going on. To be HONEST in yours and tiggers post the two of you would have fully quoted me, in context AND quoted ALL of a "source" instead of part of a source to show the CONTEXT of what we are talking about instead of just PARTS of the source that fits what you want to say.

Reject and object all you want....it doesn't change the facts.

Keeping it real...Mary

 

[Marymog]

People are going to believe whatever they want to about this issue, but it is not JW’s who have changed the nature of God....that took place as part of the foretold apostasy (corruption of Christianity) and only made official doctrine over 300 years after Christ died. The Bible has no clear statement about God being part of a three part entity who could be in three different places at the same time, and who could all talk to each other.....no such God existed in Jewish religious belief....and Jesus was Jewish.

In the final analysis, it will be Jesus Christ himself who will rule on this issue.....we will all know then who was telling the truth and who is promoting the lie.

The Bible has no clear statement on A LOT of things that Christians adhere to and practice. So what's your point? Using your logic that the Bible has no clear statement on the Trinity means that you can't DENY the Trinity since there is "no clear statement" on it. YOUR men, starting with Arius, have interpreted Scripture to mean xyz while other men have interpreted THE EXACT SAME WORDS to mean abc. And all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit into their interpretation. So, once again, your logic fails.

Why is it that 99% of the Churches that teach the Trinity are part of the Apostasy and your 1% anti-trinitarians are not part of the "foretold apostasy"? Your theory is that 99% of Christianity is 'corrupt' because they adhere to the longest and most sacred teaching of Christianity and the 1% that do not believe in the Trinnity doctrine are not corrupt. Based on your theory Satan has already won and God has lost. I don't think God has lost.

 

[Marymog]

Matthew 26:39 RS.... “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not separate and distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:18-18 RS.... “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” ( The testimony of “two witnesses” was in God’s law, so the Father testified about about his son confirming that Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Matthew 20:20-23 RS....“The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (If Jesus was truly both God and man, not one or the other—wouldn’t that privilege be his to give?)

Matthew 28:18 RS...”And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Does this suggest equality? Why does God have to “give” an equal part of himself “authority” over anything.....? He already has all authority.)

Revelation 3:12 RS....”He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” (Since this was part of the Revelation, which was given to Jesus by his Father, and then to an angel to give to John, how is it that the Father needed to give it to Jesus if they are one and the same “God”? And why has Jesus called his Father “my God” even in heaven? Can God have a God?
What new name does Jesus have, since YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah) is the only name that is ever given to God in the Bible?)

John 17:3 RS....”And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (So here again we have Father and son as separate beings, and Jesus himself saying that “knowing” Yahweh as “the only true God” was the way to eternal life. He did not include himself in that description.).

Well, I guess if you don't read or include the passages that are opposite of your interpretation then you are right.

 

[tigger 2]

Any idea why God calls Jesus, Israel and Ephraim His Firstborn son?

Not a trick question; sincerely curious myself.

Colossians 1:15
Exodus 4:22
Jeremiah 31:9

God’s calling the nation of Israel his “firstborn son” obviously means the first nation he has caused to come into existence to be his own (and others must someday follow).

Jer. 31:9 is actually found at Jer. 38:9 in the Septuagint. Again God is speaking of the nation of Israel (see context of entire chapter): “I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn [prototokos] .”

Again it does not say "firstborn son."

So how can we understand Ephraim being Jehovah’s “firstborn”? - Jer. 31:9.

Here Ephraim is obviously called Jehovah’s firstborn in some figurative sense. (The person, Ephraim, was, of course, long dead at this time.) Certainly neither Ephraim, nor even the tribe of Ephraim, was ever Jehovah’s “pre-eminent one” or (more parallel to the trinitarian interpretation of Col. 1:15) “the pre-eminent one OVER Jehovah”!

So to explain the use of “firstborn” at Jer. 31:9, the very trinitarian ecumenical study Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., tells us that

“as [the tribe of] Ephraim is restored, so is all Israel” - p. 954.

This interpretation shows the understanding that the tribe of Ephraim is to be restored first in time (“firstborn”), and then the rest of Israel is to be restored. Notice there is no “pre-eminence” interpretation by these highly respected trinitarian scholars!

Another possibility suggested by trinitarians for “firstborn” at Jer. 31:9 is that, since the land of the tribe of Ephraim is where “the original [first] place of worship [the tabernacle] from the time of Joshua to that of Samuel” - (NAB, St. Joseph ed., p. 902) - was located, in Shiloh, it is God’s “firstborn” in that respect (again in the sense of first in time). Or, as explained in Jer. 7:12,

“Go now to my place that was in Shiloh [in ‘Ephraim’] where I made my name dwell at first” - RSV, NRSV, NIV, and cf. NAB (‘91) “in the beginning.”

But the trinitarian reference work, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, p. 306, Zondervan, 1986, gives us the most probable explanation: the nation of Israel was also called ‘Ephraim’ “by the contemporary prophets, e.g., Isa. 7:1-9, after the central region associated with the name of the younger of the two sons of Joseph.”

So we merely have a parallelism at Jer. 31:9 - (1) “I, Jehovah, am a father (I created it) to the nation of Israel, and (2) ‘Ephraim’ (‘Israel’) is the first nation I have created (‘first-born’).” - Compare the parallelism at Hosea 11:8. Again we see a confirmation of Ex. 4:22 that Israel was the first nation formed at God’s direction, and no hint of “pre-eminence” but only the meaning of first in time for “firstborn”! (This is simply one of the many scriptural uses of “Father,” “Son,” [or “Firstborn,” “only-begotten,” etc.] and “brought forth” [or “begot”] to figuratively describe the CREATOR of something and his CREATION!)

 

[GEN2REV]

God’s calling the nation of Israel his “firstborn son” obviously means the first nation he has caused to come into existence to be his own (and others must someday follow).

Jer. 31:9 is actually found at Jer. 38:9 in the Septuagint. Again God is speaking of the nation of Israel (see context of entire chapter): “I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn [prototokos] .”

Again it does not say "firstborn son."

So how can we understand Ephraim being Jehovah’s “firstborn”? - Jer. 31:9.

Here Ephraim is obviously called Jehovah’s firstborn in some figurative sense. (The person, Ephraim, was, of course, long dead at this time.) Certainly neither Ephraim, nor even the tribe of Ephraim, was ever Jehovah’s “pre-eminent one” or (more parallel to the trinitarian interpretation of Col. 1:15) “the pre-eminent one OVER Jehovah”!

So to explain the use of “firstborn” at Jer. 31:9, the very trinitarian ecumenical study Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., tells us that

“as [the tribe of] Ephraim is restored, so is all Israel” - p. 954.

This interpretation shows the understanding that the tribe of Ephraim is to be restored first in time (“firstborn”), and then the rest of Israel is to be restored. Notice there is no “pre-eminence” interpretation by these highly respected trinitarian scholars!

Another possibility suggested by trinitarians for “firstborn” at Jer. 31:9 is that, since the land of the tribe of Ephraim is where “the original [first] place of worship [the tabernacle] from the time of Joshua to that of Samuel” - (NAB, St. Joseph ed., p. 902) - was located, in Shiloh, it is God’s “firstborn” in that respect (again in the sense of first in time). Or, as explained in Jer. 7:12,

“Go now to my place that was in Shiloh [in ‘Ephraim’] where I made my name dwell at first” - RSV, NRSV, NIV, and cf. NAB (‘91) “in the beginning.”

But the trinitarian reference work, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, p. 306, Zondervan, 1986, gives us the most probable explanation: the nation of Israel was also called ‘Ephraim’ “by the contemporary prophets, e.g., Isa. 7:1-9, after the central region associated with the name of the younger of the two sons of Joseph.”

So we merely have a parallelism at Jer. 31:9 - (1) “I, Jehovah, am a father (I created it) to the nation of Israel, and (2) ‘Ephraim’ (‘Israel’) is the first nation I have created (‘first-born’).” - Compare the parallelism at Hosea 11:8. Again we see a confirmation of Ex. 4:22 that Israel was the first nation formed at God’s direction, and no hint of “pre-eminence” but only the meaning of first in time for “firstborn”! (This is simply one of the many scriptural uses of “Father,” “Son,” [or “Firstborn,” “only-begotten,” etc.] and “brought forth” [or “begot”] to figuratively describe the CREATOR of something and his CREATION!)

Interesting.

Thank you for the response.

 

[Aunty Jane]

OK...keeping it real....

It takes MAN to interpret His word.

I disagree....I believe that God is the one who chooses us as much as we think we are choosing him.
Only God can open eyes of understanding....and he will only do that if he sees a meek and teachable heart.

Those who accept what is not truth are in a very large majority as Jesus indicated (Matthew 7:13-14)....so why would the majority of humans accept what is false and reject what is true? The answer is provided in the scriptures.
1 John 5:19...
“We know that we are from God and that the entire world lies under the power of the evil one.” (NCB)
In a world controlled by the devil, (the master deceiver) nothing is as it seems.

Jesus also told us about the “wheat and the weeds”.....that the devil would sow a counterfeit form of Christianity, and that these “weeds” would be allowed to “grow together” with the “wheat” until the “harvest time”. So how do we determine which is the true faith and which is the counterfeit? Well....this is the point.....”we” don’t. But God does not allow those who love the lies to come into his spiritual family.

John 6:63-65...
“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh can achieve nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some among you who do not believe.” For from the very beginning Jesus knew who did not believe, and who would betray him. 65 He said, He said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by my Father.” (NCB)

The Father determines who comes to his son......those who want to believe the lies will never receive that invitation.

Did He provide a list of books that are in the Bible you keep quoting? No, He did not. It was thru the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to MAN AND the tradition of MAN that we have the 27 books of the NT that you keep quoting from. Your theory is not workable.

That is not true.....it is part of the lies involved with the counterfeit church. Man had little to do with the production of the Bible. All they did was compile what was already written. Not a word of scripture was written by the compilers. And that is one of the main reasons why there is no extra-biblical “scripture”. Nothing needs to be added.

Where can we find a direct statement from God, or his Son, or the Holy Spirit, that IMMERSION only is the proper way to baptize?

Jesus was our role model (1 Peter 2:21)....he underwent full immersion baptism because of what it symbolised. All Christians are to follow his lead.
He was illustratively “dying” to his former course of life, and rising from the water to do the will of his Father. It wasn’t to wash away sins, since it is “the blood of Christ” that cleanses us from sin. (1 John 1:7) Full immersion baptism was a symbolic death and resurrection. What does a mere sprinkling achieve?

Why is it that 99% of the Churches that teach the Trinity are part of the Apostasy and your 1% anti-trinitarians are not part of the "foretold apostasy"? Your theory is that 99% of Christianity is 'corrupt' because they adhere to the longest and most sacred teaching of Christianity and the 1% that do not believe in the Trinnity doctrine are not corrupt. Based on your theory Satan has already won and God has lost. I don't think God has lost.

Since “few” are on the road to life....citing a majority would be like pointing to the Jews in Jesus’ day and saying that they were right and that Jesus was a fake Messiah who deserved to die....

History is repeating and the “majority”who identify as “Christian” will be left wondering why they were not corrected. Why didn’t God correct the Jews?

2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 speaks of the “lawlessness” that was already overtaking the Christian Faith, but was restrained by the presence of the apostles. But once that restraint was removed, apostasy would overtake the “wheat”, like “weeds” always do. The lies then became the truth for “the church”.

“For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one who restrains it will continue to do so until he is removed.

Then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him by the breath of his mouth and destroy him by the splendor of his coming. His coming will be the work of Satan made manifest in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in every wicked deception designed for those who are perishing because they refused to accept the love of the truth and thereby gain salvation. For this reason, God imposes on them a powerful delusion. They believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but instead have taken pleasure in wickedness will be condemned.” (NCB)

What is this “lawlessness” that we keep hearing about? The same one that causes Jesus to reject those who practise it. (Matthew 7:21-23) The things that cause Jesus to say “I NEVER KNEW YOU”.
The apostasy was not something that was to happen way into the future...it was already starting back in the first century.....so gradually did the false teachings creep in, that the ‘majority’ hardly noticed.

It’s not till you compare the Christianity that Jesus taught, with the teachings of the apostate church that you see the glaring disparity. This was a “frog in the pot” scenario.

Have you all just accepted the false teachings until they killed you spiritually?
“Dead in your trespasses and sins”....what does that mean from God’s perspective. It means accepting lies as truth....even without being aware of it.

In the two scenarios presented by Jesus, (Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 25:31-46) those whom he utterly rejects, have no idea what they did wrong....how and why do you think that is possible?

 

[Illuminator]

Interesting.

Thank you for the response.

What's so interesting about taking a dictionary out of context? Ephraim is probably a personification if Israel, but the Bible normally personifies Israel as a woman. Here is the verse in question:

Jeremiah 31:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

Let the readers decide.

BTW, a "created" Jesus is a WTS heresy, borrowed from the heresiarch Arius from the 3rd century. The WTS butchers dictionaries as well as Scripture to support their deceptions.

 

[Illuminator]

Watchtower use of Fear and Control
Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered part of mainstream Christianity, and often referred to disparagingly as a sect or cult. As these terms are somewhat devoid of meaning by being broad in nature, this article specifically considers whether Watchtower uses excessive levels of coercion to control members. Discussion of whether the Watchtower Society is a cult, evidence of mind control and its effects.