Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man

Tiribulus · May 31, 2010, 4:11pm

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
<<< 1.Tell me exactly what John 1:1 says.
2.Then tell me the rules regarding definite and indefinite articles in Greek.
3.Then tell me what Acts 28:6 says.

If you are going to attack our translation, you are going to need to bring more than accusations. I will wait for your reply.[/quote]
And you will be waiting a very long time. I don’t need to bring anything. The burden is on you. No offense man, seriously, but I have played this game too many times with you folks. I have had 8 or 9 Greek grammars of the NT (which I personally owned and studied though I never considered myself to have risen to the level of definitive competence), including some that have been cited in the WT books and magazines, laid out across my couch which I picked up and read one at a time wherein every one agreed about the whole deal about the lack of an indefinite article in Koine Greek and disagreed with the WT explanation.

I don’t attack your translation. I am no more qualified to do that than you are to endorse it. The practical whole of 2000 years of historical and linguistic scholarship has declared it a fraud. My message stands:
Repent and believe the Gospel.

IrishSteel · May 31, 2010, 4:02pm

[quote]lnname wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Let me break it down for you even simpler: I made my points and provided some of my scriptures

Point 1 - The OT prophesied a Divine Messiah - you have to prove from scripture that the OT did not prophesy a divine messiah - ie, show a passage that proves that the Messiah was not Divine and only a man.
[/quote]

Lets only deal with your point 1 until we either agree it is true or false.

The scriptures you support this argument with (ps2,ps110) don’t mention his divinity in any way shape or form. If you can’t find a single scripture mentioning his divinity then we should assume he was not.

To use an illustration, the bible doesn’t say that Pontious Pilot was divine, so we both he agree he isn’t. No one needs to prove he was not.

The burden of proof is on you

step 1) Find a scripture that tells us the messiah is divine.
step 2) Post it

As I except Christ as the messiah, I would logically have to except the divinity of christ, then we can move on to your next four points…

Lets also do it one scripture at a time so no one gets side tracked or runs out of time to answer, and lets all read each others posts thoroughly, objectively and prayerfully, so we can turn this argument into the kind of discussion the Christ would want us to have. [/quote]

Already Done and Ignored - I even included Rabbinical testimony about the meaning of the passage. . . nice selective reading again

It’s not an argument over interpretation - you have to conclusively prove that the Messiah cannot be Divine, not that we differ in interpretation. Otherwise, all we will be doing is saying: It says this, yes. but it means this, no its means that, no it means this, no it means that, but it says this, yes it says that but it means this . . .

EDIT:

You need to provide a positive statement that proves the Messiah is not Divine, because I have passages that states that he is Divine - you just don;t agree on the interpretation-you must have scriptural proof to support your interpretation - so where is it?

IrishSteel · May 31, 2010, 3:59pm

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Hebrews 1:5 - For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

This isn’t saying that God never said that to an angel per ce, but rather, which of the angels. This is like saying, “which of mankind was made president”?..It’s Obama. Simple. It’s simply saying that none of the others were chosen, it was Jesus.

Hebrews is simply stating how important Jesus is, that he was made more prominent (because of his obedience etc) - like a “promotion” in heaven. The book is trying to stress the importance of Jesus’ role of the Messiah and High priest.[/quote]

Don’t you understand the concept of negative exclusion?

It’s meant to prove that Jesus is not an angel.

The correct analogy would be “unto which of the Germans did the Americans say, you can come be our President?” There is a unstated rejection of the group mentioned as being incapable of receiving the invitation given.

it reads like this: for unto which of the angels did God every say, You are my Son (unspoken reply) he said it unto NONE of them - thus Jesus is not an angel

honest_lifter · May 31, 2010, 4:54pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
<<< 1.Tell me exactly what John 1:1 says.
2.Then tell me the rules regarding definite and indefinite articles in Greek.
3.Then tell me what Acts 28:6 says.

If you are going to attack our translation, you are going to need to bring more than accusations. I will wait for your reply.[/quote]
And you will be waiting a very long time. I don’t need to bring anything. The burden is on you. No offense man, seriously, but I have played this game too many times with you folks. I have had 8 or 9 Greek grammars of the NT (which I personally owned and studied though I never considered myself to have risen to the level of definitive competence), including some that have been cited in the WT books and magazines, laid out across my couch which I picked up and read one at a time wherein every one agreed about the whole deal about the lack of an indefinite article in Koine Greek and disagreed with the WT explanation.

I don’t attack your translation. I am no more qualified to do that than you are to endorse it. The practical whole of 2000 years of historical and linguistic scholarship has declared it a fraud. My message stands:
Repent and believe the Gospel.[/quote]

Why is the burden on us? You are the one saying that we have translated it wrong. I brought the information to prove our translation is acceptable.

What translation do you use?

honest_lifter · May 31, 2010, 4:58pm

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Hebrews 1:5 - For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

This isn’t saying that God never said that to an angel per ce, but rather, which of the angels. This is like saying, “which of mankind was made president”?..It’s Obama. Simple. It’s simply saying that none of the others were chosen, it was Jesus.

Hebrews is simply stating how important Jesus is, that he was made more prominent (because of his obedience etc) - like a “promotion” in heaven. The book is trying to stress the importance of Jesus’ role of the Messiah and High priest.[/quote]

Don’t you understand the concept of negative exclusion?

It’s meant to prove that Jesus is not an angel.

The correct analogy would be “unto which of the Germans did the Americans say, you can come be our President?” There is a unstated rejection of the group mentioned as being incapable of receiving the invitation given.

it reads like this: for unto which of the angels did God every say, You are my Son (unspoken reply) he said it unto NONE of them - thus Jesus is not an angel[/quote]

So now you are using grammer rules. Awesome. Then please tell me the grammer rules that, when Jesus says he is God’s Son, it should be read that the two are of the same being?

IrishSteel · May 31, 2010, 5:05pm

So you agree to my statement?

And no Honest - I’ll not get into those statements yet. I’ll send you back to the 5 points, I said at the outset I wanted to discuss the five points before we got into any of the direct statements.

Tiribulus · May 31, 2010, 5:58pm

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
<<< 1.Tell me exactly what John 1:1 says.
2.Then tell me the rules regarding definite and indefinite articles in Greek.
3.Then tell me what Acts 28:6 says.

If you are going to attack our translation, you are going to need to bring more than accusations. I will wait for your reply.[/quote]
And you will be waiting a very long time. I don’t need to bring anything. The burden is on you. No offense man, seriously, but I have played this game too many times with you folks. I have had 8 or 9 Greek grammars of the NT (which I personally owned and studied though I never considered myself to have risen to the level of definitive competence), including some that have been cited in the WT books and magazines, laid out across my couch which I picked up and read one at a time wherein every one agreed about the whole deal about the lack of an indefinite article in Koine Greek and disagreed with the WT explanation.

I don’t attack your translation. I am no more qualified to do that than you are to endorse it. The practical whole of 2000 years of historical and linguistic scholarship has declared it a fraud. My message stands:
Repent and believe the Gospel.[/quote]

Why is the burden on us? You are the one saying that we have translated it wrong. I brought the information to prove our translation is acceptable.

What translation do you use?[/quote]
No, I am not the one saying they translated it wrong. I am not qualified to make that determination though I’m betting that in my younger days I was much better with Koine Greek than you are. Every competent scholar of the New Testament who ever lived, including all the ones Franz must have learned it from, if he ever had, as well as many who actually agree with you about the non Deity of Christ say they translated it wrong and intentionally at that as there is no other credible explanation for rejecting universally held objective fact.

The Revised Standard Version which was translated by a bunch of unbelieving, yet academically qualified liberals translates John 1:1 as “the Word was God”. The same pagans who originally translated virgin as young woman in an attempt to de-supernaturalize the virgin birth. Even they, out of fear of being laughed off the international stage could not escape the fact that the first verse of the Gospel of John STATES that the Word was and was with God. The same Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.

You asked what I perceive is an honest question to which I will give an honest answer. I use and respect many English translations including the good ol King James Version, but the New American Standard Bible is my favorite. It is for my purposes an ideal balance between faithful literalness and vernacular diction. I do not like the New International Version. It is not “bad” per se, but too many liberties were taken with it for my way of thinking. It is a sort of transla-phrase. Sorta translated and sorta paraphrased.

Listen friend, contrary to what you’ve been taught people like me are not on a crusade to destroy JW’s. We are on a crusade to glorify the true God. I don’t pretend to know how a Triune God can be. I also don’t pretend to know how the incarnation works even if I did believe the Son was in fact created. I don’t pretend to know how God can create everything except himself out of nothing. I don’t pretend to exactly know how a day can be a thousand years and a thousand like a day to God. On and on.

All I know is He says these things are and He’s God and I ain’t.

honest_lifter · May 31, 2010, 6:50pm

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So you agree to my statement?

And no Honest - I’ll not get into those statements yet. I’ll send you back to the 5 points, I said at the outset I wanted to discuss the five points before we got into any of the direct statements. [/quote]

People have been discussing them with you, but you keep saying they are avoiding your points.

honest_lifter · May 31, 2010, 7:02pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

No, I am not the one saying they translated it wrong.[/quote]

Really? Because this:

seems to imply to those reading that you are doing such.

[quote] I am not qualified to make that determination though I’m betting that in my younger days I was much better with Koine Greek than you are. Every competent scholar of the New Testament who ever lived, including all the ones Franz must have learned it from, if he ever had, as well as many who actually agree with you about the non Deity of Christ say they translated it wrong and intentionally at that as there is no other credible explanation for rejecting universally held objective fact.

The Revised Standard Version which was translated by a bunch of unbelieving, yet academically qualified liberals translates John 1:1 as “the Word was God”. The same pagans who originally translated virgin as young woman in an attempt to de-supernaturalize the virgin birth. Even they, out of fear of being laughed off the international stage could not escape the fact that the first verse of the Gospel of John STATES that the Word was and was with God. The same Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.

You asked what I perceive is an honest question to which I will give an honest answer. I use and respect many English translations including the good ol King James Version, but the New American Standard Bible is my favorite. It is for my purposes an ideal balance between faithful literalness and vernacular diction. I do not like the New International Version. It is not “bad” per se, but too many liberties were taken with it for my way of thinking. It is a sort of transla-phrase. Sorta translated and sorta paraphrased.

Listen friend, contrary to what you’ve been taught people like me are not on a crusade to destroy JW’s. We are on a crusade to glorify the true God. I don’t pretend to know how a Triune God can be. I also don’t pretend to know how the incarnation works even if I did believe the Son was in fact created. I don’t pretend to know how God can create everything except himself out of nothing. I don’t pretend to exactly know how a day can be a thousand years and a thousand like a day to God. On and on.

All I know is He says these things are and He’s God and I ain’t.[/quote]

Here is the revised standard addition:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

and here is Acts 28:6
“they were expecting him to swell up or drop dead, but after they had waited a long time and saw that nothing unusual had happened to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.”

I find it interesting that the scholars that wrote that Bible translated the verses differently, despite the fact that both verses have the same lack of a Greek indefinite article (given that the Greek has no indefinite article).

Acts, according the the rule applied at John 1:1 should say that Paul was God. Instead it says that they thought Paul was a god.

Can you explain this discrepancy?

As a side, here is the NWT translation of both verses

John 1:1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

and Acts 28:6
But they were expecting he was going to swell up with inflammation or suddenly drop dead. After they waited for a long while and beheld nothing hurtful happen to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.

NWT applied the rule in both cases.

IrishSteel · May 31, 2010, 7:15pm

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

People have been discussing them with you, but you keep saying they are avoiding your points.[/quote]

No, they having been offering their own conclusions without addressing the points themselves:

once again . . .

Point 1 - The OT prophesied a Divine Messiah - you have to prove from scripture that the OT did not prophesy a divine messiah - ie, show a passage that proves that the Messiah was not Divine and only a man.

Point 2A - Jehovah/Jesus is only name by which we must be save - you have to prove from scripture that either Jesus’ name or Jehovah’s name is not the name by which we must be save - ie, show a passage that states that calling on either Jesus’ name or Jehovah’s name will not save you.

Point 2B - Jehovah/Jesus is the only Savior - you have to prove from scripture that either Jesus or Jehovah is not the Savior - ie, show a passage that states that either Jesus or Jehovah is not the savior.

Point 3 - Jesus possesses the incommunicable traits of God - you have to prove that Jesus does not possess any of the traits of God - if he possess any of the traits of God then he is like God in character/essence that is in clear violation of scripture. - ie, show passages that state He does not possess any of the 5 traits I listed - just one won’t do (HINT - none of the angels or “mighty powers” possess any of the incommunicable traits of God)

Point 4 - Jesus does the work of God - this ties to the previous one, but moves from character traits to actions - you have to prove from Scripture that Jesus does not do the actions assigned to God alone - ie show passages that state that Jesus cannot do any of the things I listed - which are all actions the Bible clearly states only God can do. (HINT - none of the angels or “mighty powers” can do any of the works of God)

Point 5 - Jesus received worship - an act of reverence given only to God - you have to prove from Scripture that Jesus does not receive worship (since we are only to worship God himself), ie, show a passage that states that Jesus is not to be worshiped.

I’ll take it all the way back to the Hebrew and Greek for you if you need me to, and I have lots more scriptures for each point. But just giving me your interpretation spin won’t do - you have to prove that ALL of my points are wrong, because if just one of them is true, that one in and of itself proves the divinity of Jesus, because all you’ve given has just been “yes, that’s true, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means”. So, unfortunately for your position, you have already agreed with almost all of the statements, but merely opposed the conclusion - that’s not good enough. PROVE THEM FALSE.

Tiribulus · May 31, 2010, 7:58pm

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
<<< Can you explain this discrepancy? >>>[/quote]
Even if there were one I am not falling into this whirlpool with you.

honest_lifter · May 31, 2010, 8:14pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
<<< Can you explain this discrepancy? >>>[/quote]
Even if there were one I am not falling into this whirlpool with you. [/quote]

Wow, it is a rather simple question I would think, but you don’t want to answer it. I answered it a couple pages back if you are interested. Bottom line, they used the rule at their own discretion based on a biased viewpoint. Our bible’s translation in consistent and acceptable. If you wish to say otherwise, back it with more than personal opinion please.

its_just_me · May 31, 2010, 8:44pm

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.

Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.

I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]

Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).

And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:

“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)

Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…

As regards that chapter you quoted (John 8:48-59), it’s actually a good “proof” chapter for denying the trinity (ironically). Here’s a breakdown of what it says:

Jews: You’ve got a demon in you!

Jesus: No I don’t, I value my father…and you’re insulting me. Now I don’t want to bring glory on myself, but there is One (i.e. God) who wants that, and He judges. I guarantee that if you listen to me, you will never die. (because he is the messiah, and faith in him is necessary for eternal life).

Jews: Now we’re sure you’ve got a demon in you! Even the most faithful men (e.g. Abraham) have died, and yet you reckon that those who listen to you will never die?! Do you think you’re better than Abraham and the prophets??? Who do you think you are?!

Jesus: If I “big myself up”, then there’d be no merit in that…but it’s not me who’s trying to “boast”, it’s my Father who’s glorifying me. He’s the father that you reckon is your God, and yet you don’t know Him, whereas I do know Him, and if you say that I don’t then I’d be a liar just like you…but I know Him and I obey Him. Your father Abraham was excited about the promised messiah coming (that is - Jesus Christ), he understood and was glad!

Jews: You’re not even 50 years old, how could you have seen Abraham???

Jesus: This is the truth - I existed even before Abraham was born

Jews started throwing stones and Jesus escapes

It’s obvious that Jesus was trying to tell the Jews that he was the promised messiah (the one through whom to get salvation)…he was in no way trying to convince the Jews that he was God. The part that trinitarians always emphasise is the bit where it says “I AM”:

“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!”

This is a poor translation of Greek/bad grammar. The word “am” (I-mee) in Greek means:

to be, to exist, to happen, to be present, have been, was

So it should be: “before Abraham was born, I existed”

Where exactly does Jesus give himself the title of God??? The Jews were angry at what they perceived as:

A)Self righteousness
B)Exalting himself
C)For claiming to do what they thought only God had the right to do (but God gave Jesus the power/right)

God gave Jesus glory before his resurrection and before his “second coming” in numerous ways. But Jesus was referring to everything he was able to do with God’s power/approval (resurrect the dead etc)…that’s the sort of glory he was talking about (and the prospect of becoming King). Why would he be talking about God giving him glory, and stress that he wasn’t giving himself glory…if God was him anyway???

its_just_me · May 31, 2010, 8:50pm

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Hebrews 1:5 - For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

This isn’t saying that God never said that to an angel per ce, but rather, which of the angels. This is like saying, “which of mankind was made president”?..It’s Obama. Simple. It’s simply saying that none of the others were chosen, it was Jesus.

Hebrews is simply stating how important Jesus is, that he was made more prominent (because of his obedience etc) - like a “promotion” in heaven. The book is trying to stress the importance of Jesus’ role of the Messiah and High priest.[/quote]

It’s meant to prove that Jesus is not an angel.

[/quote]

I believe it’s meant to prove that Jesus was above the Angels (in “rank”/glory).

Tiribulus · May 31, 2010, 9:01pm

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
<<< Can you explain this discrepancy? >>>[/quote]
Even if there were one I am not falling into this whirlpool with you. [/quote]

Wow, it is a rather simple question I would think, but you don’t want to answer it. I answered it a couple pages back if you are interested. Bottom line, they used the rule at their own discretion based on a biased viewpoint. Our bible’s translation in consistent and acceptable. If you wish to say otherwise, back it with more than personal opinion please.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right. I refuse to answer it. No doubt because I am now hanging my head and clenching my fist in defeat.

Here’s a hint though. Ancient Greek grammar (or any other languages grammar for that matter) is not governed exclusively by it’s use of articles or the absence thereof. No it isn’t as simple a question as you have been led to believe.

its_just_me · May 31, 2010, 9:09pm

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

Here is the revised standard addition:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

and here is Acts 28:6
“they were expecting him to swell up or drop dead, but after they had waited a long time and saw that nothing unusual had happened to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.”

I find it interesting that the scholars that wrote that Bible translated the verses differently, despite the fact that both verses have the same lack of a Greek indefinite article (given that the Greek has no indefinite article).

Acts, according the the rule applied at John 1:1 should say that Paul was God. Instead it says that they thought Paul was a god.

Can you explain this discrepancy?

As a side, here is the NWT translation of both verses

John 1:1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

and Acts 28:6
But they were expecting he was going to swell up with inflammation or suddenly drop dead. After they waited for a long while and beheld nothing hurtful happen to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.

NWT applied the rule in both cases.
[/quote]

x2

Here’s some more:

2Co 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly (theos) sincerity…

2Co 7:10 For godly (theos) sorrow works repentance to salvation…

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly (theos) jealousy.

3Jn 1:6 Who have borne testimony of thy charity before the church: whom if thou shalt bring forward on their journey after a godly (theos) sort…

Isn’t it funny how when they translate this scripture:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (theos)

They translate the Greek word “theos” into “(G)od” (with a capital letter added in), and yet on the other scriptures (that don’t matter to prove the trinity) they use “godly” for the exact same word theos…because it doesn’t make grammatical sense to just say god??? Funny how they change the rules isn’t it?

Tiribulus · May 31, 2010, 9:55pm

@ its_just_me:
Total sidetrack. I’m gonna guess you put on at least 40 solid pounds or so assuming the legs have some meat on em too. Very good. I mean that. It also reminds me that I still have to get some pix up.

mse2us · June 1, 2010, 12:01am