The trinity and it’s false theology.
The trinity and it’s false theology.
You may be surprised to find out that the trinity doctrine does not accept Jesus Christ. It omits Christ from its doctrine and promotes a false gospel that ‘three separate persons make up God’ which is not found in Any Bible. Trinitarians profess that John 1:1 explains their theology of ‘three separate persons ’. It does not. Therefore, it is not unusual to come across an apostate trinitarian who will deny and oppose the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Trinitarians proclaim Jesus is co-equal to his God while Jesus himself proclaims "the Father is Greater than I am." (John 14:28) When Jesus Christ stated that ‘God is a Spirit’ in (John 4:24) trinitarians proclaim that Christ under the inspiration of Holy Spirit somehow mis-spoken because their doctrine teaches that God is made up of three separate Persons which is never cited in any scripture. In John 17:1 Jesus addresses his Father in prayer, he said: “Father,… and in John 17:3 he states, “This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the only true God” Was Jesus addressing God the Father or the trinity of three separate persons?
Trinitarians proclaim Jesus was not addressing the trinity itself, but God the Father. Wouldn’t that prove that the trinity to be a False God? “He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4)
As Jesus continue his teachings about God, he states, “God is a Spirit, and those worshipping Him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:24) Notice those worshiping HIM is in singular? Not ‘us’ ‘we’ they’ ‘them’ or even ME. Since trinitarians admit that the trinity is not God itself, aren’t trinitarians worshipping ‘gods’? None of them worship God the Father alone who Jesus claims to be the only true God in (John 17:3) Jesus Christ continues, “Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship HIM.” (John 4:23)
According to Jesus, only the Father was to be worshipped, not a trinity of ‘gods’. Jesus made his Father’s Name known to his disciples. “I have made Your Name Manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.” (John 17:6) Jesus even went as far to teach his disciples to pray this way: “Our Father in the heavens, let Your Name be sanctified.”
If you take a closer look at the trinity doctrine, NONE of the Persons have a NAME. It’s a Generic Formula borrowed from Pagan Worship. Trinitarians shout and yell that, Jesus is God. But the trinity itself simply doesn’t give witness about Jesus Christ. When asked to show the doctrine they often turn red and say that I must simply believe them. Then I ask, since the trinity doesn’t state that Jesus is God, show one scripture that states that. They hee and haw in frustration and begin to taunt and curse not able to find a single verse. You won’t find God the Son or God the Holy Spirit in the Bible because it simply isn’t. There is a HUGE difference from God the Son and the Son of God. If Jesus is the son of God, then whose Son is he? The trinity doesn’t have three sons does it?
Jesus is not the only person to give witness about his God and Father. The Apostles would greet one another with a similar phrase. “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Peter 1:3) The trinity omits the Name of Christ and refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. Matter of fact, here is what the scriptures state about those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7)
In Ancient times, the trinity was symbolized by three snakes, each snake would chase its own tail looking like the number 666. “And it was permitted to give breath to the image of the wild beast, so that the image of the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who refuse to worship the image of the wild beast.” (Rev 13:15)
The trinity is the Biggest Occult ever, with a Worldwide membership of 2.8 Billion People and growing! Mankind who are both weak or strong, slave or king, such ones march in the streets to protest. They place themselves above others claiming they have rights that no one else can have. They proclaim they even have the right to end life, should they carry a life inside them. They make themselves like God in know good and bad, and others have to bend their knee to their superiority. (Read 2 Timothy 3:1-5)
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins,” (Hebrews 10:26) Feel free to contact me if you wish to leave the occult of the trinity. There is HELP.
Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)
Comments
-
Death for Doubting the Trinity
When an article in The Watchtower not long ago stated that persons were put to death for doubting the trinity more than one reader inquired about this. Of course, medieval history tells of countless thousands of Jews being put to death for refusing to accept the trinity. And especially noted is the case of Servetus, whom Calvin had slowly roasted to death at the stake for his denial of the trinity.
” Yes, there was a time on the American continent, not just in medieval Europe, when to deny the trinity meant death."
Trintarians falsely teach that you must bevlieve in the trinity for salvation, the same ones who oppose Jesus as "the Christ the son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16) Learn more about the fate of Christians who refused to worship the trinity and take on the number 666.
They Valued the Bible Video
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO
-
Trinitarians proclaim Jesus is co-equal to his God while Jesus himself proclaims "the Father is Greater than I am."
Confusion of categories in this statement. "Greater" in this context is one of function, not that of ontology.
A father is greater in his functional status than a son; however, the functional status of the father does not imply that a son is any less equal by his function.
-
@Pages Confusion of categories in this statement. "Greater" in this context is one of function, not that of ontology.
A father is greater in his functional status than a son; however, the functional status of the father does not imply that a son is any less equal by his function.
Trintarians reject the words of Jesus Christ when he stated, "the Father is Greater than I am." They claim Greater doesn't mean Greater. Why, because it exposes the trinity has a fraud.
Antichrists have become particularly active during “the last days,” the time in which we now live. (2 Timothy 3:1) A key objective of these modern-day deceivers is to mislead people in regard to Jesus’ role as King of God’s Kingdom, a heavenly government that will soon rule over the entire earth.—Daniel 7:13, 14; Revelation 11:15.
-
Trintarians reject the words of Jesus Christ when he stated, "the Father is Greater than I am." They claim Greater doesn't mean Greater. Why, because it exposes the trinity has a fraud.
The above response doesn't even begin to engage with the confusing of categories.
-
There is no such scripture stating that Jesus is co-equal which exposes your belief system is faulty.
My original post, to which you have replied, simply pointed out the mistake of not recognizing that function is not an equivalent of essence.
This statement you posted, "Trinitarians proclaim Jesus is co-equal to his God while Jesus himself proclaims "the Father is Greater than I am." demonstrates the category error I first described.
-
All the angels are of the essense of God.
- "God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)
- Are they not all spirits for holy service, sent out to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation? (Heb 1:14)
- Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. (Heb 5:8)
- because he has been designated by God a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek. (Heb 5:10)
- For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, (1 Tim 2:5)
- And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort.
Christ is a godlike sort, was given authority, was begotten twice, became a life giving spirit and is the Resurrection. "because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first." (1 Thess 4:16)
"During that time {Jesus Christ} will stand up, the Great Prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time.
And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:1-2)
-
-
Jesus is not the only person to give witness about his God and Father. The Apostles would greet one another with a similar phrase. “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Peter 1:3)
The trinity omits the Name of Christ and refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. Matter of fact, here is what the scriptures state about those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7)
Of course the AntiChrist would deny that Jesus Christ has a God and Father and does His Father's Will. Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and Your Father and to My God and Your God." (John 20:17)
Here's a partial list of the God and Father of Jesus Christ of 132 pages:
- Philippians 4:20
- Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
- Ephesians 4:6
- one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
- Philippians 2:11
- and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
- 2 Corinthians 1:3
- Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort,
- 2 Corinthians 11:31
- The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the One who is to be praised forever, knows I am not lying.
- 2 Thessalonians 1:1
- Paul, Sil·vaʹnus, and Timothy, to the congregation of the Thes·sa·loʹni·ans in union with God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
- Ephesians 5:20
- always giving thanks to our God and Father for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- 2 Thessalonians 1:2
- May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Ephesians 6:23
- May the brothers have peace and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- 1 Corinthians 1:3
- May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- 2 Corinthians 1:2
- May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Galatians 1:3
- May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Ephesians 1:2
- May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Romans 15:6
- so that unitedly you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- Colossians 1:3
- We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
- Philippians 1:2
- May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Philemon 1:3
- May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- 1 Thessalonians 3:11
- Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus make a way for us to come to you.
- Revelation 1:6
- and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.
- 2 John 1:3
- There will be with us undeserved kindness, mercy, and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, with truth and love.
- Jude 1:1
- Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ, but a brother of James, to the called ones who are loved by God the Father and preserved for Jesus Christ:
- Colossians 3:17
- Whatever it is that you do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him.
- 1 Thessalonians 1:1
- Paul, Sil·vaʹnus, and Timothy, to the congregation of the Thes·sa·loʹni·ans in union with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: May you have undeserved kindness and peace.
- Colossians 1:2
- to the holy ones and faithful brothers in union with Christ at Co·losʹsae: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father.
- 2 Timothy 1:2
- to Timothy, a beloved child: May you have undeserved kindness, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
- Ephesians 1:3
- Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ,
- 1 Timothy 1:2
- to Timothy, a genuine child in the faith: May you have undeserved kindness and mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
- Galatians 1:1
- Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him up from the dead,
- Galatians 1:4
- He gave himself for our sins so that he might rescue us from the present wicked system of things according to the will of our God and Father,
- 1 Peter 1:2
- according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification by the spirit, for the purpose of being obedient and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ: May undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you.
- 1 Corinthians 15:24
- Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power.
- James 1:27
- The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.
- Titus 1:4
- to Titus, a genuine child according to the faith we share: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:16
- Moreover, may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and gave everlasting comfort and good hope by means of undeserved kindness,
- 1 Thessalonians 3:13
- so that he may make your hearts firm, blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the presence of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones.
- 1 Corinthians 8:6
- there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.
-
All the angels are of the essense of God.
This statement demonstrates a great misuse of the term essence with regard to God. It has just been asserted that all angels are God – something, I'm certain is not in line with your actual beliefs.
-
"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word."
Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."
-
Trinity Passages; can you spot the Trinity in each verse?
English Standard Version 233 results in 42 verses
Matt 1:20
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Matt 3:16
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Matt 12:18
“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
Matt 12:28
But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Matt 22:43
He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
Matt 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.
Luke 2:26
And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
Luke 3:22
and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
Luke 10:21
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
John 1:33
I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 3:34
For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.
John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
John 15:26
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
John 16:15
All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Acts 1:4
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;
Acts 2:33
Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Acts 7:55
But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Acts 10:38
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
Rom 1:4
and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Rom 8:9
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:11
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 15:16
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Rom 15:30
I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf,
1 Cor 6:11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Cor 12:3
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
2 Cor 3:3
And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
2 Cor 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Gal 4:6
And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
Eph 2:18
For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Eph 2:22
In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
Phil 3:3
For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
2 Thess 2:13
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
Titus 3:6
whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Heb 9:14
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Heb 10:29
How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
1 Pet 1:2
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
1 Pet 4:14
If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.
1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
Rev 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’
-
If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used.
In general, if there is an article, the article will be of the same gender, number, and case as the noun; and while the article does provide definiteness it is not a steadfast rule within Greek language that an anarthrous noun will always be indefinite.
Also, certain type of nouns having an article in Greek will most usually not have that article translated in English.
Since the above statement is in particular reference to Jn. 1:1 and the use of the anarthrous θεὸς in the third clause, I have chosen four verses where θεὸς is used without the article.
From the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition)
God is the One who declares them righteous. (Ro. 8:33)
θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν· God who justifies.
God is not one to be mocked. (Gal. 6:7)
θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρίζεται God is not mocked.
For God is the one... (Phil. 2:13)
θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν For it is God
...God is witness! (1 Th. 2:5)
θεὸς μάρτυς God is witness.
That a noun is without an article does not always mean the said noun is indefinite as the rendering of the four texts above demonstrate. It seems the NWT understands this point of Greek grammar; however, will arbitrarily choose to invoke their rule of indefiniteness to words as they please.
I'll provide one quote below from a resource regarding lack of an article to finish with.
IX. The Indefinite Article. The Greek had no indefinite article. It would have been very easy if the absence of the article in Greek always meant that the noun was indefinite, but we have seen that this is not the case. The anarthrous noun may per se be either definite or indefinite. (Robertson, A. T. (2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (p. 796). Logos Bible Software.)
-
So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."
Certainly sounds reasonable. I wonder if this very same reasoning might be applied to the Coptic language?
Where the Coptic scribe is copying the Greek text of John 1:1 and coming to that third clause in the verse finds no article for God; so he uses an indefinite article according to his Coptic language conventions. In any case, something to consider.
That the Coptic text has an indefinite article due to their language structure does not then imply a theological belief in a second lesser created god as do the Watch Tower folks.
-
The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):
1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1
Literally, the Coptic says:
1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god
1. c. And a god was the word
We can see at the outset that the Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article (p) in referring to the One the Word was with or “in the presence of” (nnahrm): p.noute, “the” god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article (ou; just “u” following the vowel “e”): ne.u.noute, “a god.”
Coptic translation.
“In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed in the presence of the God, and a god was the Word.”
-
We can see at the outset that the Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article (p) in referring to the One the Word was with or “in the presence of” (nnahrm): p.noute, “the” god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article (ou; just “u” following the vowel “e”): ne.u.noute, “a god.”
Yes, they followed their own Coptic language convention regarding article usage. A parallel to the English Snoopy example you provided.
However, I'm almost certain that the point of my previous reply was not at all clear in what I wished to convey.
I wished to convey that the English Snoopy rule you presented could just as easily be applied to the Coptic language practice. It was not in my mind to propose that it supported, in my opinion, the erroneous translation of the third clause of Jn. 1:1 by the NWT.
My specific consideration was that the Coptic scribe in translating the Greek text into Coptic was following his own natural language rules, and by doing so does not then imply that Coptic Christians believed the Word to be a god.
It was hoped you might recognize that your Snoopy argument you used to support the rendering of a god could also be used against supporting that rendering.
One final thought in closing, is that it is also natural in English to say, the dog was Snoopy; and, lack of an article in Greek is not an absolute indication of a word's indefiniteness.
-
You may be surprised to find out that the trinity doctrine does not accept Jesus Christ.
How are using "accept" – do you mean to say that trinitarians don't believe in, have or put confidence in, have trust in, etc. Jesus?
It omits Christ from its doctrine and promotes a false gospel that ‘three separate persons make up God’ which is not found in Any Bible.
The doctrine speaks relationally of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. In my opinion, the following "It omits Christ from its doctrine" is a rather misguided straw man diversion with regard to the doctrine of the trinity; but in passing, is not the Son also the Christ within WT teaching?
Trinitarians profess that John 1:1 explains their theology of ‘three separate persons ’. It does not.
There are certainly more passages of scripture than Jn. 1:1 that relate to the doctrine; however, the wording of Jn. 1:1 points out that the Word and God are distinct from one another, and yet, that the Word is God.
Therefore, it is not unusual to come across an apostate trinitarian who will deny and oppose the teachings of Jesus Christ.
"an apostate trinitarian" is this to be understood as an apostate from the trinitarian doctrine, or that all trinitarians are apostates according to the WT?
Trinitarians proclaim Jesus is co-equal to his God while Jesus himself proclaims "the Father is Greater than I am." (John 14:28)
At first glance, and thought, this may seem to be quite persuasive at disputing the co-equal-ness of Jesus and God; however, as I have elsewhere stated in this thread previously, this is simply a confusion of the categories "function" and that of "ontology", creating a category error and falsehood.
That a son, in function, is subordinate in position to his father in no way effects the ontological equality they both share. This is true for humankind as well, is it not?
When Jesus Christ stated that ‘God is a Spirit’ in (John 4:24) trinitarians proclaim that Christ under the inspiration of Holy Spirit somehow mis-spoken because their doctrine teaches that God is made up of three separate Persons which is never cited in any scripture.
God is a spirit being – the rest of this statement seems incoherent to me.
In John 17:1 Jesus addresses his Father in prayer, he said: “Father,… and in John 17:3 he states, “This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the only true God” Was Jesus addressing God the Father or the trinity of three separate persons?
What does the text say – does it say the Father? You answered your own question "In John 17:1 Jesus addresses his Father in prayer," did you not?
Wouldn’t that prove that the trinity to be a False God?
In what way?
As Jesus continue his teachings about God, he states, “God is a Spirit, and those worshipping Him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:24) Notice those worshiping HIM is in singular? Not ‘us’ ‘we’ they’ ‘them’ or even ME.
Yes, a singular pronoun is used, why wouldn't it be? Is there more than One True God? Is your understanding of the trinity colored by the fact the WT teaches there is a secondary, lessor god Jesus? "a god" Jn 1:1 NWT.
Since trinitarians admit that the trinity is not God itself
I find this statement demonstrating incoherency again – a lack of understanding the most basic principles concerning trinitarian doctrine.
aren’t trinitarians worshipping ‘gods’?
How so? There is only One True God worthy of worship. Father, Son, Holy Spirit – distinct in Person, co-eternal, and co-equal (nature, essence, attributes). Neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit individually of themself exhaust all that there is of the Being of God.
Is the Father eternal? If so, then it follows that the Son must also be eternal; otherwise God could not be the Father eternally.
According to Jesus, only the Father was to be worshipped, not a trinity of ‘gods’.
Is the Father, God? Are there other pagan gods available to worship which the Israelites have previously given their worship? Tritheism certainly could be defined in the above manner "a trinity of ‘gods’".
I would assert that the WT having One True God uncreated (greater) and a secondary created (lessor) god Jesus would be easily classified as bitheism.
In that the WT attempts to get around this bitheism issue by stating worship is not to Jesus proper, but the Father only; however, this is problematic for the WT because Jesus in Rev. 22:3 receives worship (λατρεύσουσιν rendered "will serve" (cf. Ex. 20:5 "worship")) alongside God in their reign as one (cf. Rev. 21:22).
Since the WT makes no provision for this worship given to Jesus in their theological construct at any time they, the WT, have an unresolvable contradiction to face. It is not as though they can explain this inconsistency away since they have clearly established in their theology that only God the Father is to be worshiped, and in no sense should there be any worship of Jesus.
I will note that the WT does make provision for honoring Jesus, but not cultic religious worship
-
BRAVO! A True Christian!
Do you REALLY believe that Jesus taught THAT?
themadjw.weebly.com
253-652-4443
-
More evidence slowly coming to light.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition.
-
"More evidence slowly coming to light.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
This citation of V. G. Tasker in his 1961 commentary of Matthew is incomplete and once again improperly used to give the impression that the writer considered "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Mt. 28:19) to be a later liturgical addition; which, if one reads the entire section that one will recognize this is not Tasker's belief in the matter.
From the commentary:
- "Secondly, it is often affirmed, that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [the words themselves] of Jesus, but either the evangelist’s words put into His mouth, or a later liturgical addition. It is argued that on the lips of Jesus they are an anachronism; that the early Church did not in fact use them as a baptismal formula till the second century; and that Eusebius of Caesarea in quoting this passage often omits or varies these words. On the other hand, the words are found in all extant Mss; and it is difficult to see why the evangelist should have inserted them if at the time when he was writing they formed no part of the Church’s liturgy. It is also difficult to suppose that, if Eusebius had really known of Mss which omitted these words, some trace of the influence of these Mss would not have survived in the textual tradition. Furthermore, it may well be that the true explanation why the early Church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name, is that the words of xxviii.19 were not originally meant by our Lord as a baptismal formula. He was not giving instructions about the actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. There is good evidence that the Greek idiom eis to onoma ('into the name' not 'in the name') could convey this meaning. Moreover, it would seem that the baptism which the risen Christ is here instructing His disciples to practice was not just a revival of John's baptism of repentance, nor even a continuation of the baptism practised by Himself and His disciples earlier in His ministry. It was essentially a new sacrament, by which men and women were to come under the influence of the Triune God, to be used in His service. The words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are therefore emphatic and essential to the text. Without them, the reference to baptism would be indeterminant and conventional." (emphasis mine) (V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew in Tasker, ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Eerdmans, 1961)).
This was brought to your attention some time ago as being a manipulation, and abuse, of this author's published words; in addition to a few other spurious citations in that thread. That you willfully continue with this tactic after having been informed and given the full context of the text to read for yourself is simply deceitful practice.
-
But notice his quote that obliterates the trinity doctrine?
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
Here's another:
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
You @Pages and @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christsure fight hard when for Catholicism when the harlot pushes idol worship, saturnalia, and goddess worship of eastre'.What am I fighting against? I just figured out the trinity doctrine you been hiding.
The protector of the trinity doctrine.
-
"But notice his quote that obliterates the trinity doctrine?"
No, I didn't notice as I actually read the entire commentary page in its context.
You may wish to pay attention to the grammar of that first sentence where he writes, "it is often affirmed" that in itself ought to be a clue to a reader that this is most likely not the writer's position on the subject. This is operating procedure in commentary writing to initially frame the position that will then be argued against.
This, "Secondly, it is often affirmed, that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [the words themselves] of Jesus, but either the evangelist’s words put into His mouth, or a later liturgical addition.", is the the position the commentator argues against.
Between this first section and the concluding remarks the writer develops his actual position.
Below is the ending conclusion of this writer's position on the subject of Mt. 28:19 "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".
This, "It was essentially a new sacrament, by which men and women were to come under the influence of the Triune God, to be used in His service. The words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are therefore emphatic and essential to the text. Without them, the reference to baptism would be indeterminant and conventional.", is the commentator's position.
The encompassing position of this writer is that these words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are therefore emphatic and essential to the text.", are emphatic and essential to the text.
Apparently, reading the text provided in full context to ascertain the writer's position proved to be too much of an effort for you; for, "...come under the influence of the Triune God, to be used in His service.", in the concluding summary frankly renders your assertion "obliterates the trinity doctrine", in my opinion, delusional.
"...sure fight hard when for Catholicism when..."
In your writing, you obviously have difficulty with what is termed catholic – small c, as in universal, opposed to what is properly termed Roman Catholic, or as stated above, Catholicism – referring to the Roman Catholic Church's faith and practice. By your stance, it would seem to me, that you should ignore reading the catholic epistles in the NT.
-
@Pages By your stance, it would seem to me, that you should ignore reading the catholic epistles in the NT.
There is no such thing, Jesus wasn't a catholic nor was Peter whom wrote "Praised be {Jehovah} the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 1:3)
Praised be {Jehovah} the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 1:3) Raising his eyes to heaven, Jesus spoke these things, and he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, (John 17:1) This means everlasting life, their coming to know YOU, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. (John 17:3) I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word. (John 17:6) I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. (John 17:22) Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you, but I know you, and these have come to know that you sent me. I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” (John 17:25-26)
You must pray, then, this way: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.” (Matthew 6:9-10) Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it. (Matthew 7:13-14) Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5) Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. (John 6:44)
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by Jehovah.’ Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me. Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father. Most truly I say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life. (John 6:45-47)
“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” (Psalms 83:18)
What does your Bible say? 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’g Everyone who hears from the Father and learns comes to me. 46 (Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God—this one has seen the Father.) 47 Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes has eternal life. (John 6:45-47)
The reason the trinity never mentions Jesus Christ is that they are deaf, blind, and dumb in not knowing the Father who draws believers but trinitarians are unbelievers in Jesus Christ.
Catholics are trinitarians, they are not Christians. Catholic idolatry is wall to wall in their temple of Satan.
Blessings for Obedience
26 “ ‘You shall not make for yourselves idols and divine images, and you shall not raise up stone pillars for yourselves, and you shall not put a sculptured stone in your land in order to worship before it, because I am Yahweh your God. (Leviticus 26:1)
-
@Brother Rando posted:
There is no such thing, Jesus wasn't a catholic nor was Peter whom wrote "Praised be {Jehovah} the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 1:3)
As @Pages noted in a previous post, the word "catholic" has two VERY DIFFERENT meanings, depending on whether it's capitalized. When capitalized -- i.e. "Catholic" -- it refers to the Roman Catholic Church (Catholicism). When it's NOT capitalized -- i.e. "catholic" -- it means "general," "global," or "universal." Therefore, the term "catholic Epistles," in which the word "catholic" is NOT capitalized, means "general" Epistles. Here's the explanation Wikipedia offers:
"The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century. At the time, that word simply meant "general", and was not specifically tied to any denomination, for example, what would later become known as the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, to avoid the impression these letters are only recognised in Catholicism, alternative terms such as "general epistles" or "general missionary epistles" are used."
References to members of the Roman Catholic Church use the capitalized word form -- e.g. "They're Catholics."
References to the New Testament epistles -- where the meaning is "general," and NOT a reference to the Roman Catholic Church -- use the NON-capitalized word form - i.e. "the catholic epistles."
For these reasons, your comment that "Jesus wasn't a catholic nor was Peter" has no meaning. Yes, neither man was a "Catholic," but the NON-capitalized word form in the term "catholic epistles" means "general," and is NOT a reference to the Catholic faith or its adherents.
-
@Bill_Coley - "The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century. At the time, that word simply meant "general", and was not specifically tied to any denomination, for example, what would later become known as the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, to avoid the impression these letters are only recognised in Catholicism, alternative terms such as "general epistles" or "general missionary epistles" are used."
Are the Catholic Epistles dating from the fourth century Inspired? Hard to believe since the Apostle John finished his Inspired Writings in 98 CE.
- If you would be so kind, can you list them so we can look them up in the Bible?
Thank you.
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Are the Catholic Epistles dating from the fourth century Inspired? Hard to believe since the Apostle John finished his Inspired Writings in 98 CE.
A small reminder from my previous post: References to the catholic epistles do NOT capitalize the word "catholic." In addition, because we're referring to the general category of NT epistles and not to any specific one of them, neither is the word "epistles" capitalized in the term "catholic epistles." Therefore, we refer to them as the "catholic epistles, " NOT the "Catholic Epistles."
As for the reference to the 4th century found in the Wikipedia content I quoted in my previous post, please note that said reference referred to the origins of the "convention" of applying the word "catholic" to those NT epistles, and NOT to the origins of the epistles themselves. Hence, you need give no further attention to your concern about the inspiration of epistles "dating from the fourth century;" the Wikipedia "catholic epistle" article makes absolutely no such suggestion.
If you would be so kind, can you list them so we can look them up in the Bible?
James; 1/2 Peter; 1/2/3 John; Jude
-
Well said, and thank you for this timely and gracious reply covering in a more full manner the historical definition of what has been termed in the NT as the catholic epistles for @Brother Rando.
-
@Bill_Coley - As for the reference to the 4th century found in the Wikipedia content I quoted in my previous post, please note that said reference referred to the origins of the "convention" of applying the word "catholic" to those NT epistles, and NOT to the origins of the epistles themselves. Hence, you need give no further attention to your concern about the inspiration of epistles "dating from the fourth century;" the Wikipedia "catholic epistle" article makes absolutely no such suggestion.
Well said, there is no such thing as "catholic epistles" in the NT, for "catholic epistles" come from the fourth century as far as their "origins", are Not Inspired.
Therefore, when a person refers to "catholic epistles" they are referring to "catholic dogma" not found in "the Inspired Word of God". The person is not only indigenous but leading away from the teaching of Jesus Christ.
Illustrate Examples:
- catholic dogma - God is a trinity. No Scripture.
- Jesus Christ taught "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) Not in catholic dogma
Then we have:
- catholic dogma - the soul is immortal and never dies
- biblical teaching - For the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything. They no longer have a reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Also, The person,j the one sinning, will die. (Ezekiel 18:20) What catholics avoid to tell you is the meaning of soul in the context of this scripture is "the Person" himself.
People, and animals are all (living souls) each according to their kind. Now if you don't want to differentiate between humans and animals, you can expand the meaning of (living soul) to (living creature). "when Yahweh God formed the man of dust from the ground, and he blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (Genesis 2:7)
So the teaching that you have (a soul) from catholic dogma is uninspired work of man. Adam was not given a soul but is a living soul. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7 KJV)
Two points:
- When you see "the LORD God" whether capitalized or not or in OT or NT, it is referring to Jehovah God.
- I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, the one who is and the one who was and the one who is coming, the All-Powerful. (Rev 1:8)
So we can find where God's Name belongs for looking for the corrupt insertion "the Lord God" and second:
- Adam became a living soul.
@Bill_Coley - Hence, you need give no further attention to your concern about the inspiration of epistles "dating from the fourth century;" the Wikipedia "catholic epistle" article makes absolutely no such suggestion.
Well said. The Wikipedia "catholic epistle" article makes no claim that the doctrine from the fourth century are "Inspired" even though @Pages was trying to allude to this fabrication. But he's not alone in this Deception. For we read :
Well said, and thank you for this timely and gracious reply covering in a more full manner the historical definition of what has been termed in the NT as the catholic epistles for @Brother Rando.
So when a trinitarian speaks I know for a fact they are telling an untruth. Notice @Bill_Coley thanks for him for his deception "of the historical definition of what has been termed in the NT as the catholic epistles.
- Claiming credit that "the historical definition of what has been termed in the NT as the catholic epistles" is not true for there is No Such Credit in the NT as the "catholic epistles" from the first century.
One can claim the "Inspired Epistles" are James; 1/2 Peter; 1/2/3 John; Jude but claiming them as "catholic epistles" in the fourth century and beyond are Uninspired. Catholicism doesn't accept the letter "J" so James, John, and Jude would not be part of the catholic epistles. And even though catholicism proclaims Peter as their first pope, it is in Error. For catholicism rejects the teachings of Peter.
*Claiming that our Lord Jesus Christ has a God and Father (1 Peter 1:3) would be considered blasphemy against their man-made doctrine of the fourth century. Anyways, according to catholic dogma, only unmarried virgins are to be recommended to pope ship. So the catholic epistles are not Inspired nor Biblical.
- The Apostle Peter was a married man. Matthew 8:14 - And when Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying down and suffering with a fever.
- And in 1 Corinthians 9:5 - Do we not have the right to take along a sister as wife, like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
In Conclusion, claiming James and Jude are part of the catholic epistles would be counter productive and shed light on the fourth century doctrine as a fabrication, that Mary the Mother of God was Forever Virgin, since James and Jude are half brothers to Jesus Christ.
- Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they were offended by him. (Mark 6:3)
Other translations of Mark 6:3...
Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Then they scoffed, “He’s just a carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us.” They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him.
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t His sisters here with us as well?” And they took offense at Him.
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.
Post edited by Brother Rando on -
This "catholic, or general, epistles" has really had an effect on you – as you no longer are able to correctly attribute who has said what in your quotations in this last post. Even, it seems, to the point of making @Bill_Coley into a trinitarian.
I truly had no idea that such an explosion with a shockwave felt around the known universe would be resulting from the explanation of the definitional meaning for catholic opposed to Catholicism, first myself, and then followed up by Bill's post.
And by the way, there is no promotion of the Roman Catholic Church, or Catholicism, in either mine, or Bill's, posting; and certainly, neither one of us are Roman Catholic. Just pointing out an area of terminological difficulty within your writing where the confusing of terms existed.
I'll provide the following with some bold emphasis:
- "A designation for seven NT letters (James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 1, 2, and 3 John) because, unlike Paul’s epistles, they were not addressed to a specific church but to Christians in general (catholic generically means “general” or “universal”). Thus, for example, James wrote to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1), and 1 Peter is addressed to “the exiles of the Dispersion” (1:1) throughout various Roman provinces. Hebrews is not included because it is addressed to a particular audience, even though we cannot identify that audience with certainty." (Patzia, A. G., & Petrotta, A. J. (2002). Pocket dictionary of biblical studies (p. 24). InterVarsity Press.)
Hope the above will give some peace and calmness.
P.S. I do wish to thank you as the tone of your writing has reminded me of an old Abbott and Costello comedy routine – thanks for the chuckle.
-
@Pages - I'll provide the following with some bold emphasis:
"A (James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 1, 2, and 3 John) because, unlike Paul’s epistles, but to Christians in general (catholic generically means “general” or “universal”). Thus, for example, James wrote to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1), and 1 Peter is addressed to “the exiles of the Dispersion” (1:1) throughout various Roman provinces. Hebrews is not included because it is addressed to a particular audience, even though we cannot identify that audience with certainty." (Patzia, A. G., & Petrotta, A. J. (2002). Pocket dictionary of biblical studies (p. 24). InterVarsity Press.)
The only time John referred in the Inspired Epistles to (generality or something becoming unisersal) was:
Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour.
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.
The Apostate teachings come un-inspired writing of 'catholic epistles" and the Didache is just one of many Apostolic Constitutions that served as the basis for twisting and altering the Bible. It shows the deceptive moral and religious conditions of the third and fourth centuries, not what the Bible really teaches.
This Apocrypha satire should be exposed and dismissed as "the angel flying in midheaven has everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people." (Rev 14:6)
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."
