[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You do realize that at John 1:18 it says that no man has seen God, right?[/quote]
You do realize that John 1:1 says Jesus is God, right?[/quote]
So what does that mean? Does that mean that the Bible is contradicting itself?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You do realize that at John 1:18 it says that no man has seen God, right?[/quote]
You do realize that John 1:1 says Jesus is God, right?[/quote]
So what does that mean? Does that mean that the Bible is contradicting itself?[/quote]
Maybe in your eyes, but in God’s eyes it does not.
John 1:18 says that No one has seen God, but God the One and Only. Since Jesus is God he has seen himslef. Seems pretty self explanitory to me. If you believe that Jesus is an angel and became human, since John 1:18 says that no one has seen God, does that mean that the angel has not seen God? Because John 1:18 says that God the One and Only has seen God. It does not say an angel has seen God.
Stated,
“You do realize that at John 1:18 it says that no man has seen God, right?”
“You do realize that John 1:1 says Jesus is God, right?”
“So what does that mean? Does that mean that the Bible is contradicting itself?”
The “fulness” of God as stated in John 1:16 could not be known through any ordinary man. It must come through the one who possesses the Nature of God. The word “God” is stated first and is without the definite article. This indicates first, that the emphasis is on the word “God,” and second, the nature of God should be the object of our attention. The statement is not referring to the impossubility of a vision of God (a theophany), but rather to His Qualities.
“Hath seen” (heoraken) is in the Greek perfect tense indicating a past action of seeing which is held in the mind so that it may be related to others. God’s nature cannot be seen or held and revealed to others by any ordinary man. The utter inability of “no man” is stressed in opposition to God who revealed himself in the Only Begotten. (Many ancient manuscripts read “God only begotten” indicating that Jesus is both God and only begotten or unique, one of a kind.)
John’s Gospel begins with the Logos who has eternality and equality with God. The Logos then assumed human nature and was introduced by the Baptist. Then John’s Gospel preclaims that the fullness of truth and grace was in Jesus Christ. Verse 18 is related to verses 1 and 2 by this assertion that the logos, who is Jesus Christ, retained His deity when He came to earth. Since He is God, He had the ability to give the full revelation of God.
“In the bosom of the Father” refers to the truth of His deity and shows the reason the only begotten God could be the full revelation of all that God is. He, the Logos, and now known as Jesus Christ, “is in the bosom” of God the Father. The evidence indicates that not only in eternity but even while He was on earth in the flesh His existence was in the bosom of the Father. This is the closest relationship to God. His position is not merely beside (para) God, But He is the heart of God.
The Father has no separate manifestation from the Son. The Son is the only manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is known of the Father is revealed through the Son. To see the Son is to see the essence of the Father (John 14:9). The Son of God is God’s interpreter. God did not intrust His full revelation to be given by men; He took the initiative to declare it for himself.
As an ex-JW, I find this thread interesting.
While I won’t argue anything at all, I will say that the claim that JW’s are being brainwashed, is total bullshit. No one (at least not here in Denmark), looked down on me or said I was blinded by satan, when I began to have questions about the whole ordeal. (I as well, was stuck on the question regarding the source of sin, amongst others as well)
But the “elder” I studied with, was always very understanding of my questions, and always answered me, with the bible. We never ever used the watchtower, only the Bible.
(Irrelevantpost over)
Then I stand corrected and apologize for stating that you guys only use the WatchTower for talking points. You guys have been thought what you beleive and we Christians have been taught what we beleive.
The two different translations of the Bible is a huge sticking point, but it is what it is. I have said this before and I will say it again. We will have to wait to see who is correct.
If you all are willing to continue to discuss under the premise that non of us are going to convert then we can continue, but if a question is asked lets answer the question and then move on to your new question. No more leading questions.
What not to do.
What is Heaven?
Well if you look at verse such and such what does it say?
What to do.
What is Heaven?
Heaven is the place that God resides. You can add more stuff if you like such as verse or two, but I want to know what your interpretation of the scripture is. Anyone can print a verse. If you use a verse let us know what your thoughts are on it. I have responded in the past with my interpretation, and I am told not that is wrong and you are just confused. I have also done this to you guys.
We all have a good understanding of the Bible, we have a general understanding of where people are getting their text from, so quoting wall of verses and the like, to me is getting a little tiring. Give one verse and make your statement. If we have a disagreement then we can discuss with more verses on each side. I just want people to get to the point.
I am not the most scholarly as many on here, so I will upset people from time to time. I have studied extensively in the past, but fell away, for 10 years, as you have seen from the last post in the Serious Debate thread that filled up. I would like to say Thank you to the JWs for working me out. I have had to get back into the Bible, and I have been spending a lot of time with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I am meditating on the scripture, and reading books I did not read in college. I have also found brothers in Christ all over the world and that is very encouraging. We all come from different back grounds so we look at the scriptures different.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
As an ex-JW, I find this thread interesting.
While I won’t argue anything at all, I will say that the claim that JW’s are being brainwashed, is total bullshit. No one (at least not here in Denmark), looked down on me or said I was blinded by satan, when I began to have questions about the whole ordeal. (I as well, was stuck on the question regarding the source of sin, amongst others as well)
But the “elder” I studied with, was always very understanding of my questions, and always answered me, with the bible. We never ever used the watchtower, only the Bible.
(Irrelevantpost over)[/quote]
Not irrelevant at all.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You do realize that at John 1:18 it says that no man has seen God, right?[/quote]
You do realize that John 1:1 says Jesus is God, right?[/quote]
So what does that mean? Does that mean that the Bible is contradicting itself?[/quote]
Maybe in your eyes, but in God’s eyes it does not.
John 1:18 says that No one has seen God, but God the One and Only. Since Jesus is God he has seen himslef. Seems pretty self explanitory to me. If you believe that Jesus is an angel and became human, since John 1:18 says that no one has seen God, does that mean that the angel has not seen God? Because John 1:18 says that God the One and Only has seen God. It does not say an angel has seen God.[/quote]
This is where reasoning comes in. It says that “no man has seen God at any time” but it doesn’t mention anything about angels seeing God. We do know in other scriptures that angels are around God’s throne and that, at one point, Satan came before God’s throne. This would appear that angels can see God, but that humans cannot. Now, since men saw Jesus, that would draw a logical conclusion that Jesus cannot be God.
As a side point: NIV’s translation of that scripture leaves a little to be desired. Look at some other translations to see what they have to say on that verse.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You do realize that at John 1:18 it says that no man has seen God, right?[/quote]
You do realize that John 1:1 says Jesus is God, right?[/quote]
So what does that mean? Does that mean that the Bible is contradicting itself?[/quote]
Maybe in your eyes, but in God’s eyes it does not.
John 1:18 says that No one has seen God, but God the One and Only. Since Jesus is God he has seen himslef. Seems pretty self explanitory to me. If you believe that Jesus is an angel and became human, since John 1:18 says that no one has seen God, does that mean that the angel has not seen God? Because John 1:18 says that God the One and Only has seen God. It does not say an angel has seen God.[/quote]
This is where reasoning comes in. It says that “no man has seen God at any time” but it doesn’t mention anything about angels seeing God. We do know in other scriptures that angels are around God’s throne and that, at one point, Satan came before God’s throne. This would appear that angels can see God, but that humans cannot. Now, since men saw Jesus, that would draw a logical conclusion that Jesus cannot be God.
As a side point: NIV’s translation of that scripture leaves a little to be desired. Look at some other translations to see what they have to say on that verse.[/quote]
Angels in heaven and even Satan can commune with God, but cannot see him. He is covered in an unapproachable light.
1 Timothy 6:15-16
God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
All quotes provided below are prior to the 4th century AD.
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with Godâ??s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).
“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).
Aristides
“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit” (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).
Tatian the Syrian
“We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).
Melito of Sardis
“It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages” (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinaiâ??s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).
Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
“Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth” (ibid., 3:19:1).
Clement of Alexandria
“The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginningâ??for he was in Godâ??and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things” (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).
“Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son” (ibid., 10:110:1).
Tertullian
“The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born” (The Flesh of Christ 5:6â??7 [A.D. 210]).
“That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord” (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
“Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
Hippolytus
“Only [Godâ??s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
Hippolytus of Rome
“For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new” (ibid., 10:34).
Novatian
“If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, â??And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?â?? [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, â??And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,â?? except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, â??And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;â?? but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God” (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
[/quote]
Your exactly right Irish and those quotes prove my point perfectly. This is just what Jesus said would happen with the wheat and the weeds illustration at Matthew 13. Jesus said while men were sleeping Satan would sow weeds among the wheat. The weeds and their teaching would dominate the wheat and its teaching and would become the dominate teaching until the time of the end. During the time of the end the wheat would be separated from the weeds and the wheat teachings would be different and discernible from the weed teachings. Those men were the apostles who while alive were able to keep unscriptural teachings at bay. But the apostles started to see false teachings enter the Christian congregation in their day so Paul warned at Colossians 2:8 the following:
“8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”
Paul too realized that after he died false teachings would enter into the Christian congregation because he said at Acts 20:29,30:
“I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”
After the last apostle John died around 97 C.E. the weeds begin to be sown among the christian congregation by way of Greek philosophy and the trinity teaching is one such weed like teaching. The trinity teaching did not start to fully develop until the second and third century A.D. well after the apostles had fallen asleep in death. By the fourth century A.D. the trinity belief was split among Christians so the Council of Nicea was formed by Constantine in 325 to settle the dispute. It was during this council that the side who believed that Jesus was God won. It took almost 30 years after the Nicean council for them to add the holy spirit part of the trinity and declare God was three eternal persons during the Council at Constantinople in 381 A.D. This is a historical fact.
In order to accept the doctrine of the Trinity one must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in their doctrine of Tradition and Magisterium. This doctrine declares that the Apostles did not have all the truths of God and that the “Church” formulated doctrines AFTER the Bible was written which are to be reckoned to be as important as the truths explicitly taught in the Bible. Since Trinity was not taught in the Bible, but formulated in the fourth century, it nevertheless must be believed since the “Church” said it was true.
The point is that the trinity teaching was not taught during the time of the apostles and the Christians of the first century A.D. Religious scholars admit that it took almost three hundred years for this doctrine to develop and become an official doctrine. The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this as well as the fact that the trinity teaching is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Encyclopedia Britannica, Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, and many other secular sources confirm and agree that the Trinity teaching was not a belief among the apostles and Jesus’ followers. These sources don’t say that the Trinity doctrine is true or false but they all agree that it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, was not the teaching of the Christians during the time of the apostles, started to develop well after all the apostles died and overtime became the dominate thinking of Christians. Truly and weed influenced teaching.
So the statements that some have made that this belief has been around for 2000 years is a complete falsehood and you are truly fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Do some research from unbiased sources and you will see that this was not an original teaching from Jesus or his apostles.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
<<< Your exactly right Irish and those quotes prove my point perfectly. >>>[/quote]
Forgive me, I couldn’t help it.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
All quotes provided below are prior to the 4th century AD.
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with GodÃ?¢??s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).
“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).
Aristides
“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit” (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).
Tatian the Syrian
“We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).
Melito of Sardis
“It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages” (Fragment in Anastasius of SinaiÃ?¢??s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).
Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
“Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth” (ibid., 3:19:1).
Clement of Alexandria
“The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginningÃ?¢??for he was in GodÃ?¢??and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things” (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).
“Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son” (ibid., 10:110:1).
Tertullian
“The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born” (The Flesh of Christ 5:6Ã?¢??7 [A.D. 210]).
“That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord” (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
“Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
Hippolytus
“Only [GodÃ?¢??s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
Hippolytus of Rome
“For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new” (ibid., 10:34).
Novatian
“If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, Ã?¢??And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?Ã?¢?? [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, Ã?¢??And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,Ã?¢?? except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, Ã?¢??And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;Ã?¢?? but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God” (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
[/quote]
Your exactly right Irish and those quotes prove my point perfectly. This is just what Jesus said would happen with the wheat and the weeds illustration at Matthew 13. Jesus said while men were sleeping Satan would sow weeds among the wheat. The weeds and their teaching would dominate the wheat and its teaching and would become the dominate teaching until the time of the end. During the time of the end the wheat would be separated from the weeds and the wheat teachings would be different and discernible from the weed teachings. Those men were the apostles who while alive were able to keep unscriptural teachings at bay. But the apostles started to see false teachings enter the Christian congregation in their day so Paul warned at Colossians 2:8 the following:
“8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”
Paul too realized that after he died false teachings would enter into the Christian congregation because he said at Acts 20:29,30:
“I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”
After the last apostle John died around 97 C.E. the weeds begin to be sown among the christian congregation by way of Greek philosophy and the trinity teaching is one such weed like teaching. The trinity teaching did not start to fully develop until the second and third century A.D. well after the apostles had fallen asleep in death. By the fourth century A.D. the trinity belief was split among Christians so the Council of Nicea was formed by Constantine in 325 to settle the dispute. It was during this council that the side who believed that Jesus was God won. It took almost 30 years after the Nicean council for them to add the holy spirit part of the trinity and declare God was three eternal persons during the Council at Constantinople in 381 A.D. This is a historical fact.
In order to accept the doctrine of the Trinity one must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in their doctrine of Tradition and Magisterium. This doctrine declares that the Apostles did not have all the truths of God and that the “Church” formulated doctrines AFTER the Bible was written which are to be reckoned to be as important as the truths explicitly taught in the Bible. Since Trinity was not taught in the Bible, but formulated in the fourth century, it nevertheless must be believed since the “Church” said it was true.
The point is that the trinity teaching was not taught during the time of the apostles and the Christians of the first century A.D. Religious scholars admit that it took almost three hundred years for this doctrine to develop and become an official doctrine. The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this as well as the fact that the trinity teaching is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Encyclopedia Britannica, Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, and many other secular sources confirm and agree that the Trinity teaching was not a belief among the apostles and Jesus’ followers. These sources don’t say that the Trinity doctrine is true or false but they all agree that it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, was not the teaching of the Christians during the time of the apostles, started to develop well after all the apostles died and overtime became the dominate thinking of Christians. Truly and weed influenced teaching.
So the statements that some have made that this belief has been around for 2000 years is a complete falsehood and you are truly fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Do some research from unbiased sources and you will see that this was not an original teaching from Jesus or his apostles.
[/quote]
So we are to stop following what the apostles taught to their disciples? There is no logic in that. The Roman Catholic Church as we all know it was not officially started until well after the 400 A.D. The chruch was all the different chruches as seen in Revelation. Each Church had a Bishop that was the leader of that region. All the councils that are written about were all the different Bishops comming together to discern what the Holy Spirit was telling them. They were there to keep the teachings of Heresy out of the church. Just so you know JWs beleifs are not new. The different councils were weeding out the teachings that you are teaching today. Please continue to tell yourself that your reasoning is the truth. You never mention the Eastern Orthodox Church ever. You are only singling out the Roman Catholic Church. I find this utterly amazing.
We will see at the end of days who is right and who is wrong.
I was still in shock over your statements and misquoted - Satan took 1/3 with him 2/3 remained.
And no, I’m not going to discuss angel doctrine with you.
At this point, unless you guys come up with proof that my five points are false, I’m pretty much done with this.
We have nothing in common in our beliefs other than names and major themes . . . You have a polytheistic, angel worshiping faith and We have a Monotheistic, God-only faith.
I was hoping to find some common ground with you guys and be able to discuss those commonalities, but there just aren’t any.
Whatever it is that you guys believe is completely foreign to what is written plainly in scripture and what has been taught to the believers from the apostles to today. You’ve misquoted history, misquoted the church fathers, misquoted scripture, ignored figurative and literal rules of interpretation - well, just ignored the rules for scriptural interpretation altogether, and on that error-filled base your church has built a web of convoluted and misguided doctrines.
I don’t see what there is left to discuss - we are over here and you guys are way over there on the other of a great chasm - we are divided by doctrine and thus by our faiths. Sorry if that sounds too harsh, but that is the way it is . . . I see no common ground between us.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You do realize that at John 1:18 it says that no man has seen God, right?[/quote]
You do realize that John 1:1 says Jesus is God, right?[/quote]
So what does that mean? Does that mean that the Bible is contradicting itself?[/quote]
Maybe in your eyes, but in God’s eyes it does not.
John 1:18 says that No one has seen God, but God the One and Only. Since Jesus is God he has seen himslef. Seems pretty self explanitory to me. If you believe that Jesus is an angel and became human, since John 1:18 says that no one has seen God, does that mean that the angel has not seen God? Because John 1:18 says that God the One and Only has seen God. It does not say an angel has seen God.[/quote]
This is where reasoning comes in. It says that “no man has seen God at any time” but it doesn’t mention anything about angels seeing God. We do know in other scriptures that angels are around God’s throne and that, at one point, Satan came before God’s throne. This would appear that angels can see God, but that humans cannot. Now, since men saw Jesus, that would draw a logical conclusion that Jesus cannot be God.
As a side point: NIV’s translation of that scripture leaves a little to be desired. Look at some other translations to see what they have to say on that verse.[/quote]
Angels in heaven and even Satan can commune with God, but cannot see him. He is covered in an unapproachable light.
1 Timothy 6:15-16
God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.[/quote]
Mathew 18:10
“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”
In regards to your scripture. Who is it talking about? And what did it mean when it said “who alone is immortal”? Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
<<< And people like Trib (no offence Trib) would have you believe that us Jehovah’s Witnesses are poor little robotic sheep with no idea of our so called “seedy” history 
>>>[/quote]
Don’t worry about me Pal. I can take it =]
Now you went n brought up Ray Franz, whose book you may by now not be shocked to learn I also owned. I have never ever been to an ex JW website or an anti JW site up to my typing this post, ever in my life, even once. I had forgotten about Ray Franz, but now I’ll probably go and refresh my memory about that whole shakeup of the late 70’s early 80’s. One thing I will promise is that it’s you who haven’t gotten the straight story on that whole deal.
One thing that Mse2us has said that’s true is that experience alone that doesn’t answer to God’s word is not evidence. If it were then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would be the world storehouse of truth with their “burning in the bosom”. (another story).
I already said I’ve personally known 2 ex JW’s who did repent of their false gods to worship the one true God one of which was disenchanted with the 1975 debacle. I’ve also known at least 1 lady that I can remember that left the watchtower and fell into wholesale unbelief. Those are instructive stories worth knowing about, but in themselves prove nothing. What makes Ray Franz significant is that he had first hand experience with the dictatorial stranglehold that the governing body held over it’s members.
The saddest thing about brainwashed people is that they’re the very last ones to find out they are. Every particle of religious belief you have and anything related, has been bottle fed to you by the WB&TS. If you doubt this just see what happens if you or anybody else tries to believe ANYTHING different. They don’t even want you in the same room with anything questioning them.
After I was born again the whole Deity of Christ/Trinity thing didn’t even come up for probably the better part of a year. It just didn’t occur to me to consciously think about it in those terms though I had done TONS of reading in the New King James Bible I was given.
I wound up at a Bible study in somebody’s house I had met and the subject was “Who is God”. The guy leading it (Who was a Mexican immigrant named Mike. Now that I think about it my early days as a Christian were very diverse) led us in a very nice prayer and started in on “who does God Himself say the He is?” At some point it came up that there were groups that claimed to believe the Bible, but didn’t believe that Jesus was God. I was genuinely befuddled. Like, what? Of course Jesus is God. That was the first time I had ever specifically thought it about it like that. It just came naturally.
In the next several years I read everything by anybody I could get my hands on. Including the watchtower. I arrived at what I believe now after prayerfully considering hundreds of views on everything with the only real presupposition being that the Bible alone and in it’s entirety is the plenary verbal written Word of God though I didn’t know to state it that way when I started. There are still some areas I’m not sure about. I’m allowed that.[/quote]
Well, to be honest, I don’t doubt Franz’s perspective…but that just it though, it’s his perspective. I chose not to dwell on what an imperfect organisation may be like at times, because I see the “bigger picture”. If I were to be told every negative thing about a person (and things that only a close associate knows about them), then it’s obvious that I will not have a very good impression of that person; likewise with the religion; if I only read/hear negative things about it, whether in books, online or in person (even the "deepest things that happen behind closed doors), I will have very big doubts. Don’t get me wrong, I can see imperfections (specifically in the way things are run)…but who am I to point out other people’s mistakes like that? Is that not being haughty/presumptuous? Besides, things tend to “iron” out over time, you just need patience. Just because someone’s experience may have been negative, it doesn’t make that universal.
You don’t need to have been to a ex-JW website. Many Christian denominations who have websites up get their sources of info from ex-JW “bashing” websites, including books from Franz.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are quite “structured” in their belief system; we understand that emotions/personal experience can influence allot…so there needs to be some sort of “base line”. Some would say that this is being over controlling, but there needs to be theocracy (i.e. strict abidance to the bible).
On the brainwashed note: Do you believe that I was brainwashed despite having nothing to do with the religion for about 5 years? I lived a “normal” life, away from family and friends who were connected to the religion, and lived with a non JW and their family for that time period…but I decided to come back after bible study and research (no persuasion needed)?
I have had plenty of questions for the elders trust me - I give them a “good run for their ‘money’”
The funny thing about what you said about the trinity being like 2nd nature to you, is that I have found it to be the other way around when meeting others. Few people I have met believed in the trinity, in fact, one woman I met on the doors (preaching/ministry) not only didn’t believe in the trinity - I had to inform her that her church teaches it…and she argued that it’s such a “silly idea” she’s sure they don’t teach it LOL.
I appreciate the fact that you seem to be open minded and searching for answers. I like to think of myself as being the same way. I enjoy speaking to people about faith, even if it’s to listen to their views, I’ll still show a genuine interest (because it’s something personal to someone and they are opening up).
As regards the reading “everything” part and praying about it…I have some reservations there. Not doubting that you prayed, just that it’s sometimes easy to be influenced/swayed by external things. What comes to mind is the case of Balaam (in the Hebrew scriptures)…fancy a bible story (lol)?:
Balak king of Moab sent messengers to the prophet Balaam. The messengers brought payments to the prophet to hire him to curse Israel. Balaam wanted the rewards, but he had some relations with the God of Israel and he wanted God’s permission to go curse Israel. However, God told the prophet: You must not go with them. You must not curse the people, for they are blessed. So Balaam decided not to do it. Balak sent more men to Balaam but with more temptation this time. Balaam started praying about it again. This time God said to Balaam: Get up, go with them. But only the word that I shall speak to you is what you may speak. Yet immediately after this the record states: And the anger of God began to blaze because he was going. When Balaam joined Balak, he blessed Israel instead of cursing it. Numbers 22:12-35
Moray of the story is; even though Balaam prayed for direction, God gave him directions, but because Balaam had other motives, he kept praying until God allowed him to go (Balaam in the end went along with his own heart and not God’s initial direction).
…
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
As an ex-JW, I find this thread interesting.
While I won’t argue anything at all, I will say that the claim that JW’s are being brainwashed, is total bullshit. No one (at least not here in Denmark), looked down on me or said I was blinded by satan, when I began to have questions about the whole ordeal. (I as well, was stuck on the question regarding the source of sin, amongst others as well)
But the “elder” I studied with, was always very understanding of my questions, and always answered me, with the bible. We never ever used the watchtower, only the Bible.
(Irrelevantpost over)[/quote]
This has been my experience in the past too. I believe a lot of it depends on what you’re like as a person; I’ve know others who had been really proud/arrogant in their “questions”…and thus the elders are not going to have the “time of day” for these ones. If the person is sincere and decent, then the elders/circuit overseer will be patient and try to explain.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
All quotes provided below are prior to the 4th century AD.
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with GodÃ?¢??s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).
“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).
Aristides
“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit” (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).
Tatian the Syrian
“We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).
Melito of Sardis
“It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages” (Fragment in Anastasius of SinaiÃ?¢??s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).
Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
“Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth” (ibid., 3:19:1).
Clement of Alexandria
“The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginningÃ?¢??for he was in GodÃ?¢??and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things” (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).
“Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son” (ibid., 10:110:1).
Tertullian
“The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born” (The Flesh of Christ 5:6Ã?¢??7 [A.D. 210]).
“That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord” (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
“Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
Hippolytus
“Only [GodÃ?¢??s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
Hippolytus of Rome
“For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new” (ibid., 10:34).
Novatian
“If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, Ã?¢??And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?Ã?¢?? [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, Ã?¢??And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,Ã?¢?? except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, Ã?¢??And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;Ã?¢?? but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God” (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
[/quote]
Your exactly right Irish and those quotes prove my point perfectly. This is just what Jesus said would happen with the wheat and the weeds illustration at Matthew 13. Jesus said while men were sleeping Satan would sow weeds among the wheat. The weeds and their teaching would dominate the wheat and its teaching and would become the dominate teaching until the time of the end. During the time of the end the wheat would be separated from the weeds and the wheat teachings would be different and discernible from the weed teachings. Those men were the apostles who while alive were able to keep unscriptural teachings at bay. But the apostles started to see false teachings enter the Christian congregation in their day so Paul warned at Colossians 2:8 the following:
“8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”
Paul too realized that after he died false teachings would enter into the Christian congregation because he said at Acts 20:29,30:
“I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”
After the last apostle John died around 97 C.E. the weeds begin to be sown among the christian congregation by way of Greek philosophy and the trinity teaching is one such weed like teaching. The trinity teaching did not start to fully develop until the second and third century A.D. well after the apostles had fallen asleep in death. By the fourth century A.D. the trinity belief was split among Christians so the Council of Nicea was formed by Constantine in 325 to settle the dispute. It was during this council that the side who believed that Jesus was God won. It took almost 30 years after the Nicean council for them to add the holy spirit part of the trinity and declare God was three eternal persons during the Council at Constantinople in 381 A.D. This is a historical fact.
In order to accept the doctrine of the Trinity one must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in their doctrine of Tradition and Magisterium. This doctrine declares that the Apostles did not have all the truths of God and that the “Church” formulated doctrines AFTER the Bible was written which are to be reckoned to be as important as the truths explicitly taught in the Bible. Since Trinity was not taught in the Bible, but formulated in the fourth century, it nevertheless must be believed since the “Church” said it was true.
The point is that the trinity teaching was not taught during the time of the apostles and the Christians of the first century A.D. Religious scholars admit that it took almost three hundred years for this doctrine to develop and become an official doctrine. The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this as well as the fact that the trinity teaching is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Encyclopedia Britannica, Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, and many other secular sources confirm and agree that the Trinity teaching was not a belief among the apostles and Jesus’ followers. These sources don’t say that the Trinity doctrine is true or false but they all agree that it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, was not the teaching of the Christians during the time of the apostles, started to develop well after all the apostles died and overtime became the dominate thinking of Christians. Truly and weed influenced teaching.
So the statements that some have made that this belief has been around for 2000 years is a complete falsehood and you are truly fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Do some research from unbiased sources and you will see that this was not an original teaching from Jesus or his apostles.
[/quote]
Wow even disregarding Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, disciples of John, first who was mauled by lions to death, second burned at the stake then stabbed when the fire failed for defending and keeping their faith. Maybe you should read what some of these guys wrote before claiming there are wrong. It would be nice if one of you guys replied to my post on page 15.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
<<< A very long post >>>
[/quote]
You have a lot here. I’ll do my best to respond when I am not rushed to do so.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Your exactly right Irish and those quotes prove my point perfectly. This is just what Jesus said would happen with the wheat and the weeds illustration at Matthew 13. Jesus said while men were sleeping Satan would sow weeds among the wheat. The weeds and their teaching would dominate the wheat and its teaching and would become the dominate teaching until the time of the end. During the time of the end the wheat would be separated from the weeds and the wheat teachings would be different and discernible from the weed teachings. Those men were the apostles who while alive were able to keep unscriptural teachings at bay. But the apostles started to see false teachings enter the Christian congregation in their day so Paul warned at Colossians 2:8 the following:
“8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”
Paul too realized that after he died false teachings would enter into the Christian congregation because he said at Acts 20:29,30:
“I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”
[/quote]
How can I be right and it prove your point? My point was the fact that it was taught from our earliest church fathers that Jesus was God. And the sources I quoted proved that.
Merely stating the scripture that false doctrines would enter the church in no way proves what the false doctrines being spoken about actually are. I can quote the same passage and point at your doctrines which did not appear until the 20th century . . .
What exactly did you prove?
[quote]mse2us wrote:
After the last apostle John died around 97 C.E. the weeds begin to be sown among the christian congregation by way of Greek philosophy and the trinity teaching is one such weed like teaching. The trinity teaching did not start to fully develop until the second and third century A.D. well after the apostles had fallen asleep in death. By the fourth century A.D. the trinity belief was split among Christians so the Council of Nicea was formed by Constantine in 325 to settle the dispute. It was during this council that the side who believed that Jesus was God won. It took almost 30 years after the Nicean council for them to add the holy spirit part of the trinity and declare God was three eternal persons during the Council at Constantinople in 381 A.D. This is a historical fact.
[/quote]
You are entirely misrepresenting the history. The name Trinity and the agreed upon doctrinal terminology to be used by the Church was not formalized until the 4th century because prior to the heresy of Arian, it was not necessary to do. Everyone believed the same until Arianism was introduced and the church fathers realized that this heresy had to be addressed and so a formalized doctrinal statement was introduced.
As I said before, when I proved your Babylonian/Egyptian claim was false, this does not equate with the appearance of new doctrine, merely the establishment of a written creed to prevent the spread of NEW heresy. So in fact, by appealing to the early church history, you only prove that the deity of Jesus was already a universal belief in the early Church.
If your whole argument of a doctrine being a weed is based on the date that the names and terminology of specific doctrines was formalized, then every doctrine we hold is a weed because none of the names and none of the doctrines were formalized so that they could be written down until the church councils.
Where in the bible do we find these names or terms; Soteriology, Theosis, Ecclesiology, Christology, Atonement, Pneumatology, Hamartiology, Angelology, Eschatology, advent, atheism, monotheism, rapture, divinity - we don’t, we created the words to convey meanings and ideas so that the Truth of God could be described to new listeners. Your entire argument is based on a false premise, yet again.
It is a logical fallacy to predicate your argument upon the date of doctrinal formalization - this does not prove that the doctrine was not believed or taught prior to that date and you cannot possibly prove that point because you have NO historical record that states that “Jesus is God” was not taught by the apostles or early church fathers. You are arguing a case with no evidence at all on your side of the argument.