The Holy Trinity in the Second Century.
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit
"Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is
then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine
mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the
Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length."
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, circa 150AD
"Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is
then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine
mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the
Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted
worthy to receive these things at His hands."
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 150 AD.
"...the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and
the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and
the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us <about> these things,
and <about> the host of the other good angels who follow and are made
like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing
them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one
who wishes to learn, as we have been taught."
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 158 AD.
"In like manner also the three days were before the luminaries, are
types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom."
St. Theophilus of Antioch, 168 AD.
"I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the
third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all
things were made according to the will of the Father."
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 193 AD.
"...one cannot believe in One Only God in any way other than by saying
that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame
Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of
One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the
dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a
Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-The Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree,
not in substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as
He is One God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are
reckoned, under the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit. How they are susceptible of number without division, will
be shown as our treatise proceeds."
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 198 AD.
"The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who
always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the
dispensation (of the Three in One), on this ground that their very
rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the
one only true God, He must yet be believed in with His own economy.
The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be
a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity
out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is
actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us
that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to
themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One
God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not
produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitutes the
truth."
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 199 AD.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He,who has neither the repentance of the Tax Collector, nor the good deeds of the Pharisee.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all,
and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
Jerry Martin
Where is it in the Bible? Where did Jesus say he was God? Be specific.
JM
St.Athanasius wrote in message <372ec1d2...@news.quicknet.com.au>...
St.Athanasius
Dear "John"
>Just goes to show that you know nothing of whats in the Bible.
>Where is it in the Bible? Where did Jesus say he was God? Be specific.
Lets play this game a bit then "John". Answer these simple questions.
How do you know the Book you hold IS THE BIBLE?
How do you know that the Bible is TRUE?
How do you know that Jesus Christ ever lived?
Where is it in the Bible does it say that it HAS TO BE IN THE BIBLE?
I can answer your inane statement for you if you are able to answer
the preceeding first.
As for Christ saying He was God I would recommend you commence reading
the Bible at Genesis 1:1 and finish at Revelation 22:21 (Not the NWT
version) and then you may be able to answer your own questions.
May peace come to you.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
St.Athanasius
Where you read "John" please insert "Jerry Martin" (Actually quite
applicable considering all the circumstances.
S
(St.Athanasius) wrote:
typical catholic, change the subject so you don't have to answer the
questions about your churches blasphemous doctrine of the trinity.
S
>In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the One God,
>Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus is with His elect.
>
>Dear "John"
>
>>Just goes to show that you know nothing of whats in the Bible.
>>Where is it in the Bible? Where did Jesus say he was God? Be specific.
>
>Lets play this game a bit then "John". Answer these simple questions.
>
>How do you know the Book you hold IS THE BIBLE?
>
>How do you know that the Bible is TRUE?
>
>How do you know that Jesus Christ ever lived?
>
>Where is it in the Bible does it say that it HAS TO BE IN THE BIBLE?
>
>I can answer your inane statement for you if you are able to answer
>the preceeding first.
>
>As for Christ saying He was God I would recommend you commence reading
>the Bible at Genesis 1:1 and finish at Revelation 22:21 (Not the NWT
>version) and then you may be able to answer your own questions.
>
>May peace come to you.
http://truth.tsx.org/
Please sign our Guestbook and do our questionarie, as
well as the quizz while on our site.
Troy Harris
truth...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 1999 01:56:29 GMT, athmi...@quicknet.com.au
> (St.Athanasius) wrote:
>
> typical catholic, change the subject so you don't have to answer the
> questions about your churches blasphemous doctrine of the trinity.
>
> S
Heretic,
He is not Catholic, but Orthodox. Can you answer the questions?
The Holy Trinity is found simply in "The Name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit"- note Name, not *names*. Matt 28:19,20. People who deny tis do not
understand it.
Jesus is God because John 1:1-13 says so. The Jews attempted to stone Him
because they understood Him to be claiming to be god. They were eyewitnesses
to His teaching to boot , John 5:18, 10:31,33 Anyone who understands the
nature of deity will defend that to be equal with God is impossible for any
creature. To have or possess any deity is also impossible for a creature.
You also missed the point. The title of the header should give you a hint
as to what it is about. The post is not meant to prove the Trinity from the
Bible, which is easy, but to prove that the ancient Christians also knew this
doctrine, and it was not an invention of the later Church.
Troy H
>
> >In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the One God,
> >Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus is with His elect.
> >
> >Dear "John"
> >
> >>Just goes to show that you know nothing of whats in the Bible.
> >>Where is it in the Bible? Where did Jesus say he was God? Be specific.
> >
> >Lets play this game a bit then "John". Answer these simple questions.
> >
> >How do you know the Book you hold IS THE BIBLE?
> >
> >How do you know that the Bible is TRUE?
> >
> >How do you know that Jesus Christ ever lived?
> >
> >Where is it in the Bible does it say that it HAS TO BE IN THE BIBLE?
> >
> >I can answer your inane statement for you if you are able to answer
> >the preceeding first.
> >
> >As for Christ saying He was God I would recommend you commence reading
> >the Bible at Genesis 1:1 and finish at Revelation 22:21 (Not the NWT
> >version) and then you may be able to answer your own questions.
> >
> >May peace come to you.
>
> http://truth.tsx.org/
> Please sign our Guestbook and do our questionarie, as
> well as the quizz while on our site.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Troy Harris
"Jerry Martin" <m1...@mcia.com> wrote:
> Just goes to show that you know nothing of whats in the Bible.
> Where is it in the Bible? Where did Jesus say he was God? Be specific.
>
Try John chapters 1, 5 and 10. Also Tit. 2:13. Then read about the "first and
the last" in both Isaiah and Revelation.
Troy H
> St.Athanasius wrote in message <372ec1d2...@news.quicknet.com.au>...
> >In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the One God,
> >He,who has neither the repentance of the Tax Collector, nor the good deeds
> of the Pharisee.
> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++
> >
> > "The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for
> all,
> > and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
> > Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
S
<troy_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <373de4d3...@news.net2000.com.au>,
> truth...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 1999 01:56:29 GMT, athmi...@quicknet.com.au
>> (St.Athanasius) wrote:
>>
>> typical catholic, change the subject so you don't have to answer the
>> questions about your churches blasphemous doctrine of the trinity.
>
>Heretic,
I don't know a Heretic, except maybe the catholic church, but I will
try to answer your questions for you.
> He is not Catholic, but Orthodox. Can you answer the questions?
if he excepts the blasphemy of the trinity, he is still a catholic, it
doesn't matter either way.
> The Holy Trinity is found simply in "The Name of the Father, Son, and Holy
>Spirit"- note Name, not *names*. Matt 28:19,20. People who deny tis do not
>understand it.
Pleeeeeeezzzzze,
How about you add the first bit to it instead of strip the scriptures
to suit your own blaspheming belief.
Matt 28:18 - 20
The Jesus came to them and said, "All power in heaven and on earth is
*GIVEN* to me.
[19] So go and make followers of all people in the world. Baptize
them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[20] Teach them to obey everything that I have taught you, and I will
be with you always, even until the end of this age.
If Christ is God, why did he have to give HIMSELF the power??
and I hate to deflate your ego in the catholic church, but "The name
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is still 3 distinct beings, he
could just have easily said in the name of the Father, in the name of
the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit. This does not make a
trinity it simply makes it easier to baptize PEOPLE (not babies).
> Jesus is God because John 1:1-13 says so. The Jews attempted to stone Him
>because they understood Him to be claiming to be god. They were eyewitnesses
>to His teaching to boot , John 5:18, 10:31,33 Anyone who understands the
>nature of deity will defend that to be equal with God is impossible for any
>creature. To have or possess any deity is also impossible for a creature.
He holds all the rightful power of God yes, but he isn't the Almighty
God himself, he is only the mighty God as mentioned in Isaiah
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace.
> You also missed the point. The title of the header should give you a hint
>as to what it is about. The post is not meant to prove the Trinity from the
>Bible, which is easy, but to prove that the ancient Christians also knew this
>doctrine, and it was not an invention of the later Church.
By the early Christians do you mean the Apostles or the ones that came
after them. This is important, for the Apostles didn't believe in the
trinity.
S
George Politis
> >Spirit"- note Name, not *names*. Matt 28:19,20. People who deny tis do not
> >understand it.
> and I hate to deflate your ego in the catholic church, but "The name
> of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is still 3 distinct beings, he
> could just have easily said in the name of the Father, in the name of
> the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit. This does not make a
> trinity it simply makes it easier to baptize PEOPLE (not babies).
It is actually "the name OF THE Father and OF THE Son and OF THE Holy Spirit".
I.e., the one name belongs to all three.
Troy or Greg might correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO Jesus received all
authority as risen Messiah. I.e., by his resurrection he is now declared
Lord of Lords, and the king of Israel becomes the King of all Kings.
St.Athanasius
One God, Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord be with your spirit.
Dear George,
Greetings, I have noted your recent posts and see
that you are a man of faith. Glad to make your acquaintance. I shall
answer your other post as well, but with regards to this one I agree
wholeheartedly.
>It is actually "the name OF THE Father and OF THE Son and OF THE Holy Spirit".
>I.e., the one name belongs to all three.
>
>Troy or Greg might correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO Jesus received all
>authority as risen Messiah. I.e., by his resurrection he is now declared
>Lord of Lords, and the king of Israel becomes the King of all Kings.
>
Of course this is true and we would not disagree with you on that.
Remember however, (here comes the crunch) Jesus' receiving that
authority is not the end of the story, for HE GAVE THAT AUTHORITY to
His APOSTLES. To remit sin, to retain it, to preach, to teach, to
baptize, to make disciples, to ordain, to reject etc etc. As an
ambassador is the one who announces the war or peace, however it is
the King/government that had the authority to declare it. So with
Christ, He has all authority in heavon and on earth, and He has
delegated this authority to His Apostles. Those in that succession of
The Faith and the Apostolic line (for you may not have only one) are
the ambassadors of Christ today who have the same authority to loose
and bind in Heaven and on earth. (This is Orthodox doctrine).
Peace to you.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Graeme
(St.Athanasius) wrote:
>>
>>Troy or Greg might correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO Jesus received all
>>authority as risen Messiah. I.e., by his resurrection he is now declared
>>Lord of Lords, and the king of Israel becomes the King of all Kings.
>>
>Of course this is true and we would not disagree with you on that.
>Remember however, (here comes the crunch) Jesus' receiving that
>authority is not the end of the story, for HE GAVE THAT AUTHORITY to
>His APOSTLES.
"That authority" is stretching it too far. He has ALL authority; He
has delegated SOME authority.
>To remit sin, to retain it,
Something He has given to all believers. Remitting and retaining has
to do with acceptance or rejection of the gospel.
>o preach, to teach, to
>baptize, to make disciples, to ordain, to reject etc etc. As an
>ambassador is the one who announces the war or peace, however it is
>the King/government that had the authority to declare it. So with
>Christ, He has all authority in heavon and on earth, and He has
>delegated this authority to His Apostles. Those in that succession of
>The Faith and the Apostolic line (for you may not have only one) are
>the ambassadors of Christ today who have the same authority to loose
>and bind in Heaven and on earth. (This is Orthodox doctrine).
>
Christian doctrine says there is no apostolic line today. The
apostolic line ended with the close of the canon. John was the last
apostle.
The delegations today are to ALL believers, though the actual gifts
are distributed according to the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit.
Graeme Hunt
invi...@world-net.co.nz
http://www.worldnet.co.nz/~invictus/beacon/index.htm
ICQ 37569326
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Dear Graeme, Greetings again,
>"That authority" is stretching it too far. He has ALL authority; He
>has delegated SOME authority.
Splitting peas really. The authority He delegated (in Orthodox
Christian Doctrine) is the power of salvation or not. Now if you can
find a higher authority than that please quote it. .
>
>>To remit sin, to retain it,
>
>Something He has given to all believers. Remitting and retaining has
>to do with acceptance or rejection of the gospel.
The acceptance of the gospel is of course a huge part of the plan of
salvation and you will get no argument from me on that point, however,
remitting and retaining sins is not the proclamation of the gospel,
this is something else. And it is something that (in Orthodox
Christian doctrine) only certain Christians have been given (the
ambassador analogy remember) the authority to pronounce or retain.
>
>>o preach, to teach, to
>>baptize, to make disciples, to ordain, to reject etc etc. As an
>>ambassador is the one who announces the war or peace, however it is
>>the King/government that had the authority to declare it. So with
>>Christ, He has all authority in heavon and on earth, and He has
>>delegated this authority to His Apostles. Those in that succession of
>>The Faith and the Apostolic line (for you may not have only one) are
>>the ambassadors of Christ today who have the same authority to loose
>>and bind in Heaven and on earth. (This is Orthodox doctrine).
>>
>Christian doctrine says there is no apostolic line today. The
>apostolic line ended with the close of the canon. John was the last
>apostle.
St John was the last Apostle indeed, however, the authority that St
John had was passed on through the consecration of the Bishops he
ordained for the Churches in Asia Minor, and when they were near to
falling asleep, they passed it on etc etc. Until today it still exists
in the world and is passed on through those who have the Apostolic
faith and heritage.
>
>The delegations today are to ALL believers, though the actual gifts
>are distributed according to the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit.
Salvation, gifts of the Holy Spirit are available to all believers,
but this authority is definately not available to all
Christians/believers. Unless you yourself claim Christian ladies can
hold the priesthood. ::-)) Only some believers are empowered by the
Holy Spirit to announce the remittance or retention of their sins.
Graeme I am happy to discuss this with you further, even though I know
that you will disagree vehemently with most of what I have said, I
just ask that your renunciation of the matters stay in the relm of
debate and not ad hominem.
S
<geo...@resaerch.canon.com.au> wrote:
>> > The Holy Trinity is found simply in "The Name of the Father, Son, and Holy
>> >Spirit"- note Name, not *names*. Matt 28:19,20. People who deny tis do not
>> >understand it.
>> If Christ is God, why did he have to give HIMSELF the power??
>> and I hate to deflate your ego in the catholic church, but "The name
>> of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is still 3 distinct beings, he
>> could just have easily said in the name of the Father, in the name of
>> the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit. This does not make a
>> trinity it simply makes it easier to baptize PEOPLE (not babies).
>
>It is actually "the name OF THE Father and OF THE Son and OF THE Holy Spirit".
>I.e., the one name belongs to all three.
No it doesn't, there is nothing here to signify that each is called
Jehovah or Yahweh if you want to get technical with God's name.
>Troy or Greg might correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO Jesus received all
>authority as risen Messiah. I.e., by his resurrection he is now declared
>Lord of Lords, and the king of Israel becomes the King of all Kings.
And were does this occur?? By what right do the Lords and Kings (or
Governments now) hold their power?? Obviously the god of this world,
and we all know who that is don't we??
freder...@yahoo.com
S wrote:
<snip>
> > Jesus is God because John 1:1-13 says so. The Jews attempted to stone Him
> >because they understood Him to be claiming to be god. They were eyewitnesses
> >to His teaching to boot , John 5:18, 10:31,33 Anyone who understands the
> >nature of deity will defend that to be equal with God is impossible for any
> >creature. To have or possess any deity is also impossible for a creature.
>
> He holds all the rightful power of God yes, but he isn't the Almighty
> God himself, he is only the mighty God as mentioned in Isaiah
Oops, S, you've got too many gods! You count 1.) an "Almighty God", and
2.) an only "mighty God". Would it surprise you to know that the Bible
knows of only One God? Surprising but true: they call that
'monotheism': "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer
the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me
there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and
set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the
things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear
ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have
declared it? ye are even my witnesses. *Is there a God beside me? yea,
there is no God; I know not any*." (Isaiah 44:6-8).
For the monotheism of the Bible, the Jehovah's Witnesses and other
anti-Trinity cults substitute polytheism, the idea that there are many
real gods in existence. This is how they dispose of Jesus' claim to be
God: they relegate Him to the bush-league of second rank deities.
However, the category of 'real gods other than God' is an empty one in
Biblical theology.
> Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
> government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
> Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
> Prince of Peace.
Didn't you know that Moses criminalized your polytheism?: "Unto thee it
was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is
none else beside him...Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine
heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth
beneath: *there is none else*." (Deuteronomy 4:35-39).
Fredericka
George Politis
> >I.e., the one name belongs to all three.
>
> No it doesn't, there is nothing here to signify that each is called
> Jehovah or Yahweh if you want to get technical with God's name.
I repeat, it says, "the name OF THE Father and OF THE
Son and OF THE Holy Spirit".
> >Troy or Greg might correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO Jesus received all
> >authority as risen Messiah. I.e., by his resurrection he is now declared
> >Lord of Lords, and the king of Israel becomes the King of all Kings.
>
> And were does this occur?? By what right do the Lords and Kings (or
> Governments now) hold their power?? Obviously the god of this world,
> and we all know who that is don't we??
Try Ephesians 1:20-22
ResLight
>> >It is actually "the name OF THE Father and OF THE Son and OF THE Holy
Spirit".
>> >I.e., the one name belongs to all three.
>>
>> No it doesn't, there is nothing here to signify that each is called
>> Jehovah or Yahweh if you want to get technical with God's name.
>
>I repeat, it says, "the name OF THE Father and OF THE
>Son and OF THE Holy Spirit".
There is nothing in Matthew 28:19 that says that Jesus is equal to the
Father. I know many try to say that since it says "name" -- singular -- that
this means that the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 does
not say that these are three persons, although two of those mentioned are
persons. Nor does it say or imply that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
three person in one God-The Supreme Being.
It is apparent that the word "name" here does not refer to any separate
appellations of the three mentioned. We have the personal name of the
Father -- Yahweh. We have the personal name of the Son -- Yahshua (Jesus).
But the scriptures do not give a personal name for the holy spirit. Thus
word "name" is either used in the sense of authority or of character.
As Greek wordage indicates that the phrase should be translated "into the
name of"; therefore it probably means that believers are to be immersed into
the name [character] of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus Yahweh's
people by what the baptism symbolizes are to be given such experiences in
their lives as will make them become more like thier Heavenly Father and
Jesus and their holy disposition (holy spirit). Since what is represented by
name is singular in that all three would promote the same character and
qualities, the word "name" is singular. Regardless of what the word "name"
signifies here, it is whatever the three have in common into which believers
are baptized that is singular, not denoting any singularity of three persons
in one being. "We were baptized into one body in a single Spirit, Jews as
well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same
Spirit to drink." -- 1 Corinthians 12:13, New Jerusalem Bible.
Thus this scripture does not teach the doctrine of the trinity -- that three
persons constitute one Supreme.
For more articles on the trinity see:
http://www.reslight.addr.com/l-trinity.htm
>> >Troy or Greg might correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO Jesus received all
>> >authority as risen Messiah. I.e., by his resurrection he is now
declared
>> >Lord of Lords, and the king of Israel becomes the King of all Kings.
>>
>> And were does this occur?? By what right do the Lords and Kings (or
>> Governments now) hold their power?? Obviously the god of this world,
>> and we all know who that is don't we??
>
>Try Ephesians 1:20-22
There is some truth in both statements above. The apostle later (Ephesians
2:2) identifies the prince [ruler] of this world. The authority given to
Jesus is given to him by the only true Supreme - Yahweh, thus indicating
that they are two separate beings not equal to each other. (Matthew 28:18;
John 17:1,3) This is also shown in Ephesians 1:17-22, in that the Supreme
One of our Lord Jesus "set him" at his own right hand in the heavenly
places. He has been given authority above all the governments and dominions.
At the time of the writing, Yahweh had not taken his power and begun to
reign (through Jesus), for when he does all the present kingdoms under
Satan's rule by his covenant woman, Babylon the Great and his political
entities (Revelation 12:9; 13:2; 16:13,14,16; 17:15; 18:3; 19:19; 2
Corinthians 4:3,4) will be disintegrated as Satan's empire is destroyed. --
(Revelation 11:15,17,18; Daniel 2:34,35,44,45)
Yours in service of Messiah,
Ronald R. Day
http://www.reslight.addr.com/
S
<geo...@resaerch.canon.com.au> wrote:
>> >It is actually "the name OF THE Father and OF THE Son and OF THE Holy Spirit".
>> >I.e., the one name belongs to all three.
>>
>> No it doesn't, there is nothing here to signify that each is called
>> Jehovah or Yahweh if you want to get technical with God's name.
>
>I repeat, it says, "the name OF THE Father and OF THE
>Son and OF THE Holy Spirit".
I repeat also, where in the Bible does it say that All of these have
the same name??? It doesn't. I can say in the name of My Father, and
of The name of the Son and then name of my Sister....it doesn't mean
we all have the same name. It just says that in each of the names.
Whatever those names may be.
>> >Troy or Greg might correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO Jesus received all
>> >authority as risen Messiah. I.e., by his resurrection he is now declared
>> >Lord of Lords, and the king of Israel becomes the King of all Kings.
>>
>> And were does this occur?? By what right do the Lords and Kings (or
>> Governments now) hold their power?? Obviously the god of this world,
>> and we all know who that is don't we??
>
>Try Ephesians 1:20-22
Yes, I know that...but who is the god of this world ?? At least until
the resurrection??
S
>REPOST
>
>S wrote:
>
><snip>
>> > Jesus is God because John 1:1-13 says so. The Jews attempted to stone Him
>> >because they understood Him to be claiming to be god. They were eyewitnesses
>> >to His teaching to boot , John 5:18, 10:31,33 Anyone who understands the
>> >nature of deity will defend that to be equal with God is impossible for any
>> >creature. To have or possess any deity is also impossible for a creature.
>>
>> He holds all the rightful power of God yes, but he isn't the Almighty
>> God himself, he is only the mighty God as mentioned in Isaiah
>
>Oops, S, you've got too many gods! You count 1.) an "Almighty God",
Yes, that is Our Father in Heaven. The creator of all things, seen
and unseen.
> and
>2.) an only "mighty God".
Yes I know, its surprising how the Bible mentions 2 then isn't it :-))
> Would it surprise you to know that the Bible
>knows of only One God?
Actually, had you read the Bible, you would know that it mentions more
than one, it mentions quite a few actually. Even in the NC the Bible
tells us that their are many gods, here look for yourself :-)
1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or
in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him.
OH NO, you didn't read the Bible properly did you, there are many gods
and many lords, never mind, back to the bible to learn some more for
you.
> Surprising but true: they call that
>'monotheism': "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer
>the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me
>there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and
>set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the
>things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear
>ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have
>declared it? ye are even my witnesses. *Is there a God beside me? yea,
>there is no God; I know not any*." (Isaiah 44:6-8).
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace.
If this is God himself, the Almighty God, then why is he only a prince
of peace when he is almighty God, therefore he is the King of peace.
isn't he??
>For the monotheism of the Bible, the Jehovah's Witnesses and other
>anti-Trinity cults substitute polytheism, the idea that there are many
>real gods in existence. This is how they dispose of Jesus' claim to be
>God: they relegate Him to the bush-league of second rank deities.
>However, the category of 'real gods other than God' is an empty one in
>Biblical theology.
HOLD UP THERE LASSY, Stop putting words in Jesus/The Christ's mouth,
he NEVER EVER claimed to be God, the catholic church claimed he was
God. As to the anti-trinitarian belief, its not hard to accept
really, its the Truth, then again the Truth is hard for most isn't it.
But the alternative is your god, one with 3 heads.
>> Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
>> government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
>> Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
>> Prince of Peace.
>
>Didn't you know that Moses criminalized your polytheism?: "Unto thee it
>was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is
>none else beside him...Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine
>heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth
>beneath: *there is none else*." (Deuteronomy 4:35-39).
Moses was Dead when Isaiah wrote this, isn't that funny that you use
Moses (one of God's main prophets) to blow out one of Gods other main
prophets :-((
Fredericka
<snip>
> >> He holds all the rightful power of God yes, but he isn't the Almighty
> >> God himself, he is only the mighty God as mentioned in Isaiah
> >
> >Oops, S, you've got too many gods! You count 1.) an "Almighty God",
>
> Yes, that is Our Father in Heaven. The creator of all things, seen
> and unseen.
>
> >and
> >2.) an only "mighty God".
>
> Yes I know, its surprising how the Bible mentions 2 then isn't it :-))
No, the Bible doesn't teach the Watchtower's polytheism. There's only
One God known to the Bible: "For thou art great, and doest wondrous
things: thou art God alone." (Psalms 86:10). Pagan peoples embraced
polytheism, the idea that there are two or more gods in existence. That
idea cannot be found in the Bible. When the Watchtower tells you it's
in there, they're lying to you.
> >Would it surprise you to know that the Bible
> >knows of only One God?
>
> Actually, had you read the Bible, you would know that it mentions more
> than one, it mentions quite a few actually.
No, Baal-zebub of Ekron is not really a god. The Watchtower insists
that, if Baal-zebub is called "the god of Ekron", well then, that's just
what he must be. But the idols of the nations are not really gods,
though falsely reputed so to be. When put to the test, they make their
deluded followers look as foolish as their own inert selves: "And when
all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The
LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God." (1 Kings 18:39). Idols
made by man are not *really* gods at all: "Israel shall cry unto me, My
God, we know thee. Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the
enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me: they
have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold
have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. Thy calf, O
Samaria, hath cast thee off; mine anger is kindled against them: how
long will it be ere they attain to innocency? For from Israel was it
also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of
Samaria shall be broken in pieces." (Hosea 8:1-6).
Don't the 'many gods' you lovingly embrace look a little inept, after
all?: "They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they
see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they
smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but
they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make
them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." (Psalm
115:5-8).
> Even in the NC the Bible
> tells us that their are many gods, here look for yourself :-)
>
> 1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or
> in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
> 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
> things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
> things, and we by him.
>
> OH NO, you didn't read the Bible properly did you, there are many gods
> and many lords, never mind, back to the bible to learn some more for
> you.
This is the favorite proof-text demonstrating the Watchtower's
polytheism. But please read a little more carefully. Notice that there
are many *"called"* "gods". Do you think that everything "called" a god
really is one? That's not Biblically possible, given that the Bible
knows of only One God: "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the
commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:...And the
scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there
is one God; and there is none other but he:..." (Mark 12:29-32).
> >Surprising but true: they call that
> >'monotheism': "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer
> >the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me
> >there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and
> >set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the
> >things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear
> >ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have
> >declared it? ye are even my witnesses. *Is there a God beside me? yea,
> >there is no God; I know not any*." (Isaiah 44:6-8).
>
> Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
> government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
> Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
> Prince of Peace.
>
> If this is God himself, the Almighty God, then why is he only a prince
> of peace when he is almighty God, therefore he is the King of peace.
> isn't he??
The way the Watchtower tries to dispose of Christ's claim to be God
isn't so much by denying outright that the Bible calls Him 'God' - after
all, they'd have to do a lot of ripping to accomplish that. Rather,
they admit the Bible calls Jesus 'God', but yawn, 'So what? There are
many gods.' Then they toss Him onto the junk heap of minor deities and
bush-league gods. They are convinced the skies are darkened with such a
mob of gods that's it's scarcely any distinction at all to class someone
as Deity.
But the Bible knows of only One God! This is the fundamental flaw to
the Watchtower system; the Bible teaches monotheism, not polytheism:
"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who
hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time?
have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and
a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all
the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have
sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and
shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall
swear." (Isaiah 45:21-23).
> >For the monotheism of the Bible, the Jehovah's Witnesses and other
> >anti-Trinity cults substitute polytheism, the idea that there are many
> >real gods in existence. This is how they dispose of Jesus' claim to be
> >God: they relegate Him to the bush-league of second rank deities.
> >However, the category of 'real gods other than God' is an empty one in
> >Biblical theology.
>
> HOLD UP THERE LASSY, Stop putting words in Jesus/The Christ's mouth,
> he NEVER EVER claimed to be God, the catholic church claimed he was
> God.
No, actually He did: "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven
churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto
Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and
unto Laodicea." (Revelation 1:11); "And when I saw him, I fell at his
feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear
not; I am the first and the last:..." (Revelation 1:17); "And unto the
angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and
the last, which was dead, and is alive..." (Revelation 2:8). Who is the
first and the last? The living God!: "Thus saith the LORD the King of
Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the
last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6); "Hearken unto me, O
Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the
last." (Isaiah 48:12).
I gather your 'religion' is a sorry blend of anti-Catholic bigotry and
ignorance of the Bible. Can even you be proud of this sickening mess of
man-made doctrine and ignorance? If the fruit you display is hatred and
bigotry, how could one characterize the tree?
> As to the anti-trinitarian belief, its not hard to accept
> really, its the Truth, then again the Truth is hard for most isn't it.
> But the alternative is your god, one with 3 heads.
>
> >> Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
> >> government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
> >> Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
> >> Prince of Peace.
> >
> >Didn't you know that Moses criminalized your polytheism?: "Unto thee it
> >was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is
> >none else beside him...Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine
> >heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth
> >beneath: *there is none else*." (Deuteronomy 4:35-39).
>
> Moses was Dead when Isaiah wrote this, isn't that funny that you use
> Moses (one of God's main prophets) to blow out one of Gods other main
> prophets :-((
Let me explain it a little more simply: Moses wrote Deuteronomy.
*You're* promoting polytheism, as does the Watchtower; no Bible author,
and certainly not Isaiah, bears any responsibility for your paganish
multiplicity of gods. The Bible does not contradict itself, as you've
wrongly been taught. There's no contradiction at all between Isaiah's
naming the Messiah as God in the flesh and Moses' monotheism: "Say to
them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God
will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and
save you." (Isaiah 35:4).
Fredericka
St.Athanasius
A good post.
Tony Ewen
post>
<end cut for now>
>Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
>government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
>Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
>Prince of Peace.
>
>If this is God himself, the Almighty God, then why is he only a prince
>of peace when he is almighty God, therefore he is the King of peace.
>isn't he??
>
Some points to ponder.
1. How many times does Isaiah refer to "Almighty God" (Answer: 0 - always
"the mighty God")
2. How many gods would Isaiah have served (Answer: 1)
3. Are mighty and Almighty mutually exclusive? (Answer: No)
4. Given that Isaiah would have only accepted the existence of the one true
God, what difference do the adjectives make? (Answer: none whatsover - still
the same God)
5. A Prince can be a head of state (see Monaco et al)
Just some random thoughts - now back to work I go :)
<resume cut>
<end cut again>>S
S
wrote:
>> >2.) an only "mighty God".
>>
>> Yes I know, its surprising how the Bible mentions 2 then isn't it :-))
>
>No, the Bible doesn't teach the Watchtower's polytheism. There's only
>One God known to the Bible: "For thou art great, and doest wondrous
>things: thou art God alone." (Psalms 86:10). Pagan peoples embraced
>polytheism, the idea that there are two or more gods in existence. That
>idea cannot be found in the Bible. When the Watchtower tells you it's
>in there, they're lying to you.
I don't deny that there is only one God.
>> >Would it surprise you to know that the Bible
>> >knows of only One God?
>>
>> Actually, had you read the Bible, you would know that it mentions more
>> than one, it mentions quite a few actually.
>
>No, Baal-zebub of Ekron is not really a god.
of course he is a god.
> The Watchtower insists
>that, if Baal-zebub is called "the god of Ekron", well then, that's just
>what he must be. But the idols of the nations are not really gods,
says who?? If you go to a beach, build three or 4 little sand castles
and put a wall around them and sit in the middle, are you not the god
of your own little creation?? Of course you are, but it doesn't make
you Yahweh does it, you didn't create the sand that you use to make
it, you didn't create the beach that you created your own little
creation on.
>Don't the 'many gods' you lovingly embrace look a little inept, after
>all?: "They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they
>see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they
>smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but
>they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make
>them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." (Psalm
>115:5-8).
I don't embrace any other gods but God, Yahweh. He is the one True
God.
>> Even in the NC the Bible
>> tells us that their are many gods, here look for yourself :-)
>>
>> 1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or
>> in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
>> 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
>> things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
>> things, and we by him.
>>
>> OH NO, you didn't read the Bible properly did you, there are many gods
>> and many lords, never mind, back to the bible to learn some more for
>> you.
>
>This is the favorite proof-text demonstrating the Watchtower's
>polytheism.
You are forgetting something, I don't read the WT. So if I don't read
the WT, what's the other answer??
> But please read a little more carefully. Notice that there
>are many *"called"* "gods". Do you think that everything "called" a god
>really is one?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhh....interesting point isn't it, have you
actually read the NWT?? If I am not mistaken, John 1:1 in that says,
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word
was *a god*.
It doesn't say was God.
> That's not Biblically possible, given that the Bible
>knows of only One God:
Yes, the Bible does know and talk mainly about one God, the One True
God, Yahweh. But it also mentions many other Gods, infact God
mentions them himself.
> "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the
>commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:...And the
>scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there
>is one God; and there is none other but he:..." (Mark 12:29-32).
And there is none other than Yahweh.
>> Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
>> government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
>> Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
>> Prince of Peace.
>>
>> If this is God himself, the Almighty God, then why is he only a prince
>> of peace when he is almighty God, therefore he is the King of peace.
>> isn't he??
>
>The way the Watchtower tries to dispose of Christ's claim to be God
>isn't so much by denying outright that the Bible calls Him 'God' - after
>all, they'd have to do a lot of ripping to accomplish that.
I wish you would stop lying. Christ NEVER claimed to be God at any
point in time throughout the Bible. He at no time stood up and said "
I am God" All he ever said was that he was the Son of God, this does
not make him God.
>> >For the monotheism of the Bible, the Jehovah's Witnesses and other
>> >anti-Trinity cults substitute polytheism, the idea that there are many
>> >real gods in existence. This is how they dispose of Jesus' claim to be
>> >God: they relegate Him to the bush-league of second rank deities.
>> >However, the category of 'real gods other than God' is an empty one in
>> >Biblical theology.
>>
>> HOLD UP THERE LASSY, Stop putting words in Jesus/The Christ's mouth,
>> he NEVER EVER claimed to be God, the catholic church claimed he was
>> God.
>
>No, actually He did: "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
>last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven
>churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto
>Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and
>unto Laodicea." (Revelation 1:11);
Sorry, Revelation 1:11 (JB) says:
"Write down all that you see in a book, and send it to the seven
churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia
and Laodicea.
Its says nothing about Christ claiming he was the Alpha and Omega
whatsoever.
> "And when I saw him, I fell at his
>feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear
>not; I am the first and the last:..." (Revelation 1:17);
So?? Was he not the first or creation and will he not be the last of
creation?? He doesn't claim to be the Alpha and Omega.
> "And unto the
>angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and
>the last, which was dead, and is alive..." (Revelation 2:8).
As above, he doesn't say he is the Alpha and Omega does he, just that
he is the first and the last, of which we know that he is the first
and last of creation.
> Who is the
>first and the last? The living God!: "Thus saith the LORD the King of
>Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the
>last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6); "Hearken unto me, O
>Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the
>last." (Isaiah 48:12).
You are talking OT here. God is the First and last of everything, but
Christ is the first and last of creation.
>I gather your 'religion' is a sorry blend of anti-Catholic bigotry and
>ignorance of the Bible. Can even you be proud of this sickening mess of
>man-made doctrine and ignorance? If the fruit you display is hatred and
>bigotry, how could one characterize the tree?
anti-catholic, not really, anti- catholic church, you bet, as for
bigotry, no not really, just sad for those poor souls locked in its
grip. As for ignorance of the Bible, that's most churches problems,
the catholic churches most of all.
No I can not be proud of the sickening mess of man-made doctrine and
ignorance of the catholic church. I don't know, look at the hatred
and bigotry that has been in the catholic church pretty much from its
creation.
>> >Didn't you know that Moses criminalized your polytheism?: "Unto thee it
>> >was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is
>> >none else beside him...Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine
>> >heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth
>> >beneath: *there is none else*." (Deuteronomy 4:35-39).
>>
>> Moses was Dead when Isaiah wrote this, isn't that funny that you use
>> Moses (one of God's main prophets) to blow out one of Gods other main
>> prophets :-((
>
>Let me explain it a little more simply: Moses wrote Deuteronomy.
>*You're* promoting polytheism, as does the Watchtower; no Bible author,
>and certainly not Isaiah, bears any responsibility for your paganish
>multiplicity of gods.
whose paganish views?? Look to your own churches pagan associations
first before you look at others so called pagan views. I do not view
Christ as a god.
> The Bible does not contradict itself, as you've
>wrongly been taught.
I know it doesn't, I haven't said that it does. Infact its very clear
and specific, and God is not a God of confusion as your church teaches
either.
> There's no contradiction at all between Isaiah's
>naming the Messiah as God
Isaiah DOESN'T name the Messiah as God.
S
wrote:
><cutting the bit's I'm not touching (only addressing one little piece of
>post>
><end cut for now>
>>Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
>>government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
>>Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
>>Prince of Peace.
>>
>>If this is God himself, the Almighty God, then why is he only a prince
>>of peace when he is almighty God, therefore he is the King of peace.
>>isn't he??
>>
>
>Some points to ponder.
>
>1. How many times does Isaiah refer to "Almighty God" (Answer: 0 - always
>"the mighty God")
why?? Who is he talking about exactly? Give me a couple of verses to
work with here as well.
>2. How many gods would Isaiah have served (Answer: 1)
One, Almighty God. What did Isaiah write, what he wanted to or what
Yahweh told or gave him to write??
>3. Are mighty and Almighty mutually exclusive? (Answer: No)
Yes they are. If there is an Almighty God, he can not just be mighty
can he, for Almighty is bigger than Mighty.
>4. Given that Isaiah would have only accepted the existence of the one true
>God, what difference do the adjectives make? (Answer: none whatsover - still
>the same God)
Alot, the words and the way they are written represent a difference,
want proof, here look at this.
a) the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead
b) the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead
Which is correct and why???
>5. A Prince can be a head of state (see Monaco et al)
Yes he can, but in this case we know he isn't is he. The prince of
Heaven is Not God it is Michael, the Bible tells us this.
Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of
truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but
Michael your prince.
Bret Wood
S wrote:
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhh....interesting point isn't it, have you
> actually read the NWT?? If I am not mistaken, John 1:1 in that says,
> In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word
> was *a god*.
>
> It doesn't say was God.
Is there ANY non-JW English translation of the Bible which agrees with
the NWT on the proper translation of John 1:1?
-Bret Wood
-bret...@cs.uoregon.edu
Tony Ewen
S wrote in message <3749a9ee...@news.net2000.com.au>...
>On Thu, 20 May 1999 11:49:36 +1000, "Tony Ewen" <aa...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
>
>><cutting the bit's I'm not touching (only addressing one little piece of
>>post>
>><end cut for now>
>>>Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
>>>government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
>>>Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
>>>Prince of Peace.
>>>
>>>If this is God himself, the Almighty God, then why is he only a prince
>>>of peace when he is almighty God, therefore he is the King of peace.
>>>isn't he??
>>>
>>
>>Some points to ponder.
>>
>>1. How many times does Isaiah refer to "Almighty God" (Answer: 0 - always
>>"the mighty God")
>
>why?? Who is he talking about exactly? Give me a couple of verses to
>work with here as well.
I would think it obvious that Isaiah would be referring to Yahweh don't you?
What other god would he be honouring? If he honoured another god, how would
that effect him being a prophet of Yahweh? This is a somewhat exclusive
office I would think.
>
>>2. How many gods would Isaiah have served (Answer: 1)
>
>One, Almighty God. What did Isaiah write, what he wanted to or what
>Yahweh told or gave him to write??
Given that Isaiah was a true prophet (technically an assumption but I think
you'll agree to let that one pass), then it would have been what Yahweh told
or gave him to write. Isaiah would have only recognised and honoured /
served one deity.
>
>>3. Are mighty and Almighty mutually exclusive? (Answer: No)
>
>Yes they are. If there is an Almighty God, he can not just be mighty
>can he, for Almighty is bigger than Mighty.
>
Not so. Almighty INCLUDES (emphasis - not shouting) mighty. Mighty does not
exclude almighty, but "just mighty" really doesn't mean anything. Something
mighty CAN BE almighty (assuming that something is Yahweh), and something
almighty ALREADY includes mighty. In the context of Isaiah, mighty can be
best seen as an honorific, rather than a measure or power relative to the
absolute. Of course, if one accepts the use of mighty as a relative
comparison, then Yahweh is mighty compared to anything else. As just noted,
this does not preclude him also being almighty.
>>4. Given that Isaiah would have only accepted the existence of the one
true
>>God, what difference do the adjectives make? (Answer: none whatsover -
still
>>the same God)
>
>Alot, the words and the way they are written represent a difference,
>want proof, here look at this.
>
>a) the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead
>
>b) the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead
>
>Which is correct and why???
Depends what you mean by Third Person verus third person. The first looks
like a title, whereas the second would be a statement of fact (which you and
I would probably dispute the reality of). If the lowercase form where true,
this does not preclude the title being truly applied. I consider them both
to be true. Which term is more accurate - godhead or Godhead? And what's
the difference.
As for me, I would only use this kind of capitalisation for names, so if I
wrote that sentence it would have read :
c) the Holy Spirit is the third person of the godhead.
This whole thing also assumes the acceptence of the term "godhead", which I
understand JW's reject as being of pagan origins.
>
>>5. A Prince can be a head of state (see Monaco et al)
>
>Yes he can, but in this case we know he isn't is he. The prince of
>Heaven is Not God it is Michael, the Bible tells us this.
>
In both cases I would consider the use of the term prince to be an
assignment of honor - not of subservient rank. Compare the use of lord in
various places. We know that in this world royals outrank nobles, yet the
most common address form given (at least in the modern western world) to
Yahweh is "lord", or "Lord". Does this diminish his kingship?
>Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of
>truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but
>Michael your prince.
>
At the risk of starting another convoluted thread, while it is acceptable to
give Michael the title prince, he is not the prince. In our world, even
princes have relative rankings. I'd rather not discuss Michael specifically
at this time if you don't mind.
S
wrote:
>>>1. How many times does Isaiah refer to "Almighty God" (Answer: 0 - always
>>>"the mighty God")
>>
>>why?? Who is he talking about exactly? Give me a couple of verses to
>>work with here as well.
>
>I would think it obvious that Isaiah would be referring to Yahweh don't you?
>What other god would he be honouring? If he honoured another god, how would
>that effect him being a prophet of Yahweh? This is a somewhat exclusive
>office I would think.
You didn't answer the question Tony...Why?? who is he talking about
exactly?? Give me a couple of verses to work with here and I will be
able to help and explain better for you.
>>>2. How many gods would Isaiah have served (Answer: 1)
>>
>>One, Almighty God. What did Isaiah write, what he wanted to or what
>>Yahweh told or gave him to write??
>
>Given that Isaiah was a true prophet (technically an assumption but I think
>you'll agree to let that one pass), then it would have been what Yahweh told
>or gave him to write. Isaiah would have only recognised and honoured /
>served one deity.
Ok, so we agree that Yahweh told him what to write, so the idea that
he only knew one God is irrelevant isn't it, because the words are
God's not his :-)
>>>3. Are mighty and Almighty mutually exclusive? (Answer: No)
>>
>>Yes they are. If there is an Almighty God, he can not just be mighty
>>can he, for Almighty is bigger than Mighty.
>>
>
>Not so. Almighty INCLUDES (emphasis - not shouting) mighty. Mighty does not
>exclude almighty, but "just mighty" really doesn't mean anything. Something
>mighty CAN BE almighty (assuming that something is Yahweh), and something
>almighty ALREADY includes mighty. In the context of Isaiah, mighty can be
>best seen as an honorific, rather than a measure or power relative to the
>absolute. Of course, if one accepts the use of mighty as a relative
>comparison, then Yahweh is mighty compared to anything else. As just noted,
>this does not preclude him also being almighty.
Maybe, but by your own admission, what Isaiah wrote was Gods words, in
the books from Genesis to Songs of Solomon there are roughly 29 cases
of Almighty God being used (this is before Isaiah) so why would God
have used Almighty God then and only used mighty God in Isaiah?? Like
I said, give me some verses to work with for your 1st question.
Concise Oxford Dictionary
Almighty = 1. Having all possible power (esp. Almighty God) very great
2. exceedingly
Mighty = 1. a. powerful, strong, in body or mind; (bibl) miracles. 2.
massive, bulky'; (colloq.) great, considerable; High and mighty.
There is a definite difference between the words Mighty and Almighty,
Mighty being lower or representing a lower position than Almighty. So
as you can see from what you are trying to say, God lowered his own
status if Isaiah wrote what God told him to.
>>Alot, the words and the way they are written represent a difference,
>>want proof, here look at this.
>>
>>a) the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead
>>
>>b) the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead
>>
>>Which is correct and why???
>
>Depends what you mean by Third Person verus third person. The first looks
>like a title, whereas the second would be a statement of fact (which you and
>I would probably dispute the reality of). If the lowercase form where true,
>this does not preclude the title being truly applied. I consider them both
>to be true. Which term is more accurate - godhead or Godhead? And what's
>the difference.
>
>As for me, I would only use this kind of capitalisation for names, so if I
>wrote that sentence it would have read :
>
>c) the Holy Spirit is the third person of the godhead.
So the Holy Spirit in your opinion is not God, because by your own
statement of admission, Third Person would represent a name for a
trinitarian would believe that the Holy Spirit being the Third Person
of the trinity and thereby being God would signify that acceptance
would it not??
>This whole thing also assumes the acceptence of the term "godhead", which I
>understand JW's reject as being of pagan origins.
Are you a JW?? If not what does it matter what the JW's accept and
reject?
>>>5. A Prince can be a head of state (see Monaco et al)
>>
>>Yes he can, but in this case we know he isn't is he. The prince of
>>Heaven is Not God it is Michael, the Bible tells us this.
>>
>
>In both cases I would consider the use of the term prince to be an
>assignment of honor - not of subservient rank. Compare the use of lord in
>various places. We know that in this world royals outrank nobles, yet the
>most common address form given (at least in the modern western world) to
>Yahweh is "lord", or "Lord". Does this diminish his kingship?
The correct term given to God should be as a title goes is God. Our
Lord is Christ, why, because God gave him that title and everything
that comes with it, the right be called the Son of God.
>>Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of
>>truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but
>>Michael your prince.
>>
>
>At the risk of starting another convoluted thread, while it is acceptable to
>give Michael the title prince, he is not the prince. In our world, even
>princes have relative rankings. I'd rather not discuss Michael specifically
>at this time if you don't mind.
Why?? The Bible tells us that Michael is a prince, if the Bible is
the word of God, then to deny and say that Michael is not a prince
means we deny God. does it not??
S
<bret...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>
>S wrote:
>>
>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhh....interesting point isn't it, have you
>> actually read the NWT?? If I am not mistaken, John 1:1 in that says,
>> In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word
>> was *a god*.
>>
>> It doesn't say was God.
>
>Is there ANY non-JW English translation of the Bible which agrees with
>the NWT on the proper translation of John 1:1?
No, why?? because all of the people that translated the bibles
believed in the doctrine of the trinity. The question you should ask
though is there a any greek scripture which agrees with the NWT on the
proper translation of John 1:1?? The answer is yes. I believe Ian
pointed this out in greek and in english in a previous posting.
If you would like me to repost it, let me know, I would be happy to do
so for you.
Bret Wood
S wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 May 1999 22:18:55 -0700, Bret Wood
> <bret...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> >Is there ANY non-JW English translation of the Bible which agrees with
> >the NWT on the proper translation of John 1:1?
>
> No, why?? because all of the people that translated the bibles
> believed in the doctrine of the trinity. The question you should ask
> though is there a any greek scripture which agrees with the NWT on the
> proper translation of John 1:1?? The answer is yes. I believe Ian
> pointed this out in greek and in english in a previous posting.
That is just lunacy. The obvious reason I asked if there was an
English version is because translation from Greek is not a trivial
matter. And in fact, most of the information on this group suggests
that linguists (even _atheist_ linguists) tend to agree that the NWT
translation of John 1:1 is incorrect. So your claims that the
translations were all done by trinitarians is incorrect. Some were
done by people who only had an academic interest in the translation.
-Bret Wood
-bret...@cs.uoregon.edu
Star6...@webtv.net
>I wish you would stop lying. Christ NEVER
>claimed to be God at any point in time
>throughout the Bible. He at no time stood up
>and said " I am God" All he ever said was that
>he was the Son of God, this does not make >him God.
Although I completely disagree with the above, I think it is worth
noting that Jesus never claimed to be Michael the archangel either! He
never actually stood up and said, "I am Michael the archangel!"
The fact that Christ "merely" claimed to be the Son of God does NOT make
Him Michael the archangel. The only proof that could ever be given that
Jesus is truly Michael the archangel would be the scriptural
demonstration of Michael's UNIQUE sonship to God.
Is there a JW here willing and able to demonstrate from the scriptures
that Michael the archangel is in fact, the UNIQUE Son of God?
Simply stated, If Jesus can't be God because he never directly stated,
"I am God!", then by the same token, He can't be Michael the archangel
either. The truth is, it's a faulty argument from the very beginning!
The fact that the scriptures ascribe all of the UNIQUE attributes,
titles, and divine perogatives of Jehovah God unto Christ bears this
out. As such, the Lord Jesus Christ absolutely and unequivically cannot
be anyone other than Jehovah God Himself.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Masiewicz
S
>Truth...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
>>I wish you would stop lying. Christ NEVER
>>claimed to be God at any point in time
>>throughout the Bible. He at no time stood up
>>and said " I am God" All he ever said was that
>>he was the Son of God, this does not make >him God.
>
>Although I completely disagree with the above, I think it is worth
>noting that Jesus never claimed to be Michael the archangel either! He
>never actually stood up and said, "I am Michael the archangel!"
>
>The fact that Christ "merely" claimed to be the Son of God does NOT make
>Him Michael the archangel. The only proof that could ever be given that
>Jesus is truly Michael the archangel would be the scriptural
>demonstration of Michael's UNIQUE sonship to God.
Interesting point. especially the part about his *unique sonship to
God*
>Is there a JW here willing and able to demonstrate from the scriptures
>that Michael the archangel is in fact, the UNIQUE Son of God?
>
>Simply stated, If Jesus can't be God because he never directly stated,
>"I am God!", then by the same token, He can't be Michael the archangel
>either. The truth is, it's a faulty argument from the very beginning!
>The fact that the scriptures ascribe all of the UNIQUE attributes,
>titles, and divine perogatives of Jehovah God unto Christ bears this
>out. As such, the Lord Jesus Christ absolutely and unequivically cannot
>be anyone other than Jehovah God Himself.
But he did state himself that he was the Son of God. We know that the
sons of God are the Angels :-) next question??
S
<bret...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
If you want it, then I will put it back up for you, its that simple.
Then you can deny the original greek all you like.
Bret Wood
S wrote:
>
> If you want it, then I will put it back up for you, its that simple.
> Then you can deny the original greek all you like.
Showing the Greek doesn't do any good for people who don't read
ancient Greek. We must rely on the translations provided by people
who DO understand the ancient Greek language. And among those people
who are experts on ancient Greek, there seems to be near-universal
agreement that the NWT version of John 1:1 is wrong.
Having someone post the ancient Greek words, along with their personal
interpretation doesn't refute anything. (At least not to those of
us who don't understand the ancient Greek language)
And a simple translation of the words without taking into account the
differing syntax of the languages is NOT a valid way to do a proper
translation.
-Bret Wood
-bret...@cs.uoregon.edu
hul...@my-dejanews.com
truth...@bigfoot.com wrote:
<snip>
> >No, the Bible doesn't teach the Watchtower's polytheism. There's
> >only
> >One God known to the Bible: "For thou art great, and doest wondrous
> >things: thou art God alone." (Psalms 86:10). Pagan peoples embraced
> >polytheism, the idea that there are two or more gods in existence.
> >That
> >idea cannot be found in the Bible. When the Watchtower tells you
> >it's
> >in there, they're lying to you.
>
> I don't deny that there is only one God.
Sure you do. You claim that there are "many gods":
>[S] Even in the NC the Bible
> tells us that their are many gods, here look for yourself :-)
If there are "many gods", as you claim, then there is not only One God,
as the Bible teaches. The Bible knows of only One God: "Thus saith the
LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the
first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I,
shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I
appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall
come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not
I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my
witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not
any." (Isaiah 44:6-8).
This creates a problem for the Watchtower Society, which wishes to deny
the Deity of Jesus Christ, in spite of passages like John 1:1: "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God", and John 20:28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord
and my God." What's their solution to the dilemma? Polytheism! - like
people say, everything old is new again. A hit in ancient times, why
not revive the idea that there are "many gods"?
Though the Watchtower makes strained efforts to differentiate their
polytheism from the pagan brand, in fact the two are indistinguishable.
Like the Watchtower, the pagans of old balanced atop their jam-packed
pantheons one head honcho: Zeus, Odin, Jupiter. Indeed, the pagan
apologist Porphyry argues that God can't really be a 'King' without
having other gods to lord it over. After all, human 'kings' rule over
others of their own kind, not pigs and sheep:
"Let us explore completely this matter of the monarchy of the only God
and the manifold rule of those who are revered as gods. Your
[Christian] idea of the single rule is amiss, for a monarch is not the
only man alive but the only man who rules.
"He rules, obviously, over his kinsmen and those like himself. Take for
example the emperor Hadrian: he was a monarch because he ruled over
those who were like him by race and nature - not because he existed
alone somewhere or lorded it over oxen and sheep, as some poor shepherd
might do. In the same way: the supreme God would not be supreme unless
he ruled over other gods." (Porphyry's 'Against the Christians', The
Literary Remains, by R. Joseph Hoffman, Chapter 10, p. 83-84).
> >> >Would it surprise you to know that the Bible
> >> >knows of only One God?
> >>
> >> Actually, had you read the Bible, you would know that it mentions
> >> more
> >> than one, it mentions quite a few actually.
> >
> >No, Baal-zebub of Ekron is not really a god.
>
> of course he is a god.
He is to you, not to the Bible. The gods of the nations are not real
gods: "For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the
heavens." (Psalms 96:5); "Of a truth, LORD, the kings of Assyria have
destroyed the nations and their lands, And have cast their gods into the
fire: *for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands*, wood and
stone: therefore they have destroyed them." (2 Kings 19:17-18). The
idols are false, vain, nugatory, "of nought": "Shew the things that are
to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or
do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye
are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that
chooseth you." (Isaiah 41:23-24).
> >The Watchtower insists
> >that, if Baal-zebub is called "the god of Ekron", well then, that's
> >just
> >what he must be. But the idols of the nations are not really gods,
>
> says who??
The Bible: "They have moved me to jealousy with *that which is not God*;
they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them
to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to
anger with a foolish nation." (Deuteronomy 32:21).
> If you go to a beach, build three or 4 little sand castles
> and put a wall around them and sit in the middle, are you not the god
> of your own little creation?? Of course you are,
You boast yourself a god amidst your sand-castles, just as did the King
of Tyre. But do you know what God - the real one - did with the King of
Tyre?: "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord
GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I
sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man,
and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:...Behold,
therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations:
and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and
they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the
pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst
of the seas. Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God?
but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth
thee." (Ezekiel 28:2-9).
Please take a bit of friendly advice: when the Watchtower Society tells
you you can call yourself 'a god' on the strength of the sand-castles
you've built, decline the honor: avoiding blasphemy will lengthen your
life expectancy.
<snip>
> >The way the Watchtower tries to dispose of Christ's claim to be God
> >isn't so much by denying outright that the Bible calls Him 'God' -
> >after
> >all, they'd have to do a lot of ripping to accomplish that.
>
> I wish you would stop lying. Christ NEVER claimed to be God at any
> point in time throughout the Bible. He at no time stood up and said "
> I am God"
Of course He did. Why not read the Bible; the illiterate old men of the
Watchtower Society are not summarizing it fairly for you. "Jesus said
unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went
out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."
(John 8:58-59); "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said,
Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
you." (Exodus 3:14).
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken *me the
fountain of living waters*, and hewed them out cisterns, broken
cisterns, that can hold no water." (Jeremiah 2:13); "Jesus answered and
said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith
to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would
have given thee *living water*." (John 4:10).
And, what do you know, God's word stands, your editor's red pencil
notwithstanding: "Saying, I am *Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last*: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven
churches which are in Asia;..." (Revelation 1:11); "Thus saith the LORD
the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; *I am the first,
and I am the last*; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6);
"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; *I am the
first, I also am the last*." (Isaiah 48:12).
<snip>
> >"And unto the
> >angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and
> >the last, which was dead, and is alive..." (Revelation 2:8).
>
> As above, he doesn't say he is the Alpha and Omega does he, just that
> he is the first and the last, of which we know that he is the first
> and last of creation.
Of course He says He's "Alpha and Omega". Throw it out one place, it'll
just pop up in another: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is
with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. *I am Alpha
and Omega*, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
(Revelation 22:12-13). The One who is 'coming quickly' is Jesus. Try
as you might to strip the Bible of those scriptures impossible for your
pagan polytheism, there's just too much there.
> >Who is the
> >first and the last? The living God!: "Thus saith the LORD the King
> >of
> >Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and
> >I am the
> >last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6); "Hearken unto
> >me, O
> >Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the
> >last." (Isaiah 48:12).
>
> You are talking OT here. God is the First and last of everything, but
> Christ is the first and last of creation.
Who gave you a license to add words to God's revelation? Have you never
heard, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be
found a liar." (Proverbs 30:6)? Jesus Christ isn't 'the first and the
last of creation', but "the first and the last".
<snip>
> whose paganish views?? Look to your own churches pagan associations
> first before you look at others so called pagan views.
My church does not teach pagan polytheism. That moldy oldie, the idea
that there are "many gods" just plain ain't Biblical, and it never will
be: "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together:
who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that
time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just
God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye
saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in
righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear." (Isaiah 45:21-23).
> I do not view
> Christ as a god.
My, a step of independence from Mama Watchtower. And please don't tell
me you didn't learn your polytheism from them: it's inconceivable you
could have invented this contrived nonsense about "many gods"
independently.
Fredericka
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Star6...@webtv.net
>But he did state himself that he was the Son of
>God. We know that the sons of God are the
>Angels
You have completely missed my point.
Since Jesus Christ claimed a Sonship to the Father that was unique to
him alone, one cannot place him in a larger class of sons of the same
kind. This however, is precisely what you have done.
Here I would point out that the assertion that Michael was a son of God
by virtue of his identity as an angel fails to demonstrate a unique
sonship to the Father. All you have demonstrated is that Michael is a
son of God since he belongs to a larger class of angels who are likewise
called sons. This is certainly no proof of a unique father to son
relationship between Michael the archangel and Jehovah God.
The watchtower teaches that Satan is also a son of God, does it not?
Using the same line of reasoning that you have given, one might conclude
that Jesus Christ is Satan, the father of lies!
Michael the archangel may indeed have a unique role, position, and
purpose in God's kingdom, however, such is no proof of a unique father
to son relationship, for the same can be said of many others as well.
Certainly Moses had a unique position, role, and purpose in God's
divine plan, however, such does not indicate a father to son
relationship that is unique to Moses alone.
Now the issue being addressed here is wether or not an identity can be
drawn between Jesus Christ and Michael the archangel from the
scriptures. I stated that since Jesus (who possesses a sonship to the
father that is unique to him alone) never actually declared, "I am
Michael the archangel", the only means of establishing an identity
between them would be to demonstrate from the scriptures that Michael
possesses this same sonship that is unique to him alone.
I am inclined then to ask once again, where is the scriptural support?
From the scriptures, please.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Masiewicz
S
<bret...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>And a simple translation of the words without taking into account the
>differing syntax of the languages is NOT a valid way to do a proper
>translation.
Your right, but changing what the original greek says simply to
fulfill a false belief like the trinity is wrong also isn't it??
S
>You have completely missed my point.
No, I didn't miss your point.
>Since Jesus Christ claimed a Sonship to the Father that was unique to
>him alone, one cannot place him in a larger class of sons of the same
>kind. This however, is precisely what you have done.
The Bible tells us that Christ was / is a prince of Heaven and will be
the King of Kings.
>Here I would point out that the assertion that Michael was a son of God
>by virtue of his identity as an angel fails to demonstrate a unique
>sonship to the Father. All you have demonstrated is that Michael is a
>son of God since he belongs to a larger class of angels who are likewise
>called sons. This is certainly no proof of a unique father to son
>relationship between Michael the archangel and Jehovah God.
Michael himself is a prince of heaven and is a prince of Heaven.
>The watchtower teaches that Satan is also a son of God, does it not?
>Using the same line of reasoning that you have given, one might conclude
>that Jesus Christ is Satan, the father of lies!
That's true, satan is a son of God, or that Satan is Christs younger
brother even :-)
>Michael the archangel may indeed have a unique role, position, and
>purpose in God's kingdom, however, such is no proof of a unique father
>to son relationship, for the same can be said of many others as well.
>Certainly Moses had a unique position, role, and purpose in God's
>divine plan, however, such does not indicate a father to son
>relationship that is unique to Moses alone.
The problem with that is that their is only *one* Archangel in Heaven
:-)
As for Moses, he was a human, he never had a pre-existence in heaven
before his birth on earth.
>Now the issue being addressed here is wether or not an identity can be
>drawn between Jesus Christ and Michael the archangel from the
>scriptures. I stated that since Jesus (who possesses a sonship to the
>father that is unique to him alone) never actually declared, "I am
>Michael the archangel", the only means of establishing an identity
>between them would be to demonstrate from the scriptures that Michael
>possesses this same sonship that is unique to him alone.
>
>I am inclined then to ask once again, where is the scriptural support?
>From the scriptures, please.
I have posted these before, as have others. As I don't think people
would like to see them again I can email some of my own to you, if
people want, then I am sure we can repost them here for you again.
S
>> I don't deny that there is only one God.
>
>Sure you do. You claim that there are "many gods":
of course I do, its true, there are many gods, but there is only one
God or one Living God if you like.
>>[S] Even in the NC the Bible
>> tells us that their are many gods, here look for yourself :-)
>
>If there are "many gods", as you claim, then there is not only One God,
>as the Bible teaches.
Yes there is, even the Bible tells us that there are many gods but
only One God.
> The Bible knows of only One God: "Thus saith the
>LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the
>first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I,
>shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I
>appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall
>come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not
>I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my
>witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not
>any." (Isaiah 44:6-8).
>
>This creates a problem for the Watchtower Society, which wishes to deny
>the Deity of Jesus Christ,
excuse me, I hate to put a damper on you, if you are refering to deity
of Jesus Christ meaning that he is God, then you are mistaken, for
Christ is not God.
> in spite of passages like John 1:1: "In the
>beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
>God", and John 20:28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord
>and my God." What's their solution to the dilemma? Polytheism! - like
>people say, everything old is new again. A hit in ancient times, why
>not revive the idea that there are "many gods"?
Yes yes, I have discussed these verse many times, to no avail, I am
not going to discuss them again at this point in time, see some of my
other posts as well as posts from others about these verses.
>Though the Watchtower makes strained efforts to differentiate their
>polytheism from the pagan brand, in fact the two are indistinguishable.
> Like the Watchtower, the pagans of old balanced atop their jam-packed
>pantheons one head honcho: Zeus, Odin, Jupiter. Indeed, the pagan
>apologist Porphyry argues that God can't really be a 'King' without
>having other gods to lord it over. After all, human 'kings' rule over
>others of their own kind, not pigs and sheep:
Whose pagan views, look to the trinity before you accuse other
churches about pagan beliefs, the catholic church has more pagan
beliefs in it than any of the other churches.
>"Let us explore completely this matter of the monarchy of the only God
>and the manifold rule of those who are revered as gods. Your
>[Christian] idea of the single rule is amiss, for a monarch is not the
>only man alive but the only man who rules.
>
>"He rules, obviously, over his kinsmen and those like himself. Take for
>example the emperor Hadrian: he was a monarch because he ruled over
>those who were like him by race and nature - not because he existed
>alone somewhere or lorded it over oxen and sheep, as some poor shepherd
>might do. In the same way: the supreme God would not be supreme unless
>he ruled over other gods." (Porphyry's 'Against the Christians', The
>Literary Remains, by R. Joseph Hoffman, Chapter 10, p. 83-84).
If you want to do this, quote scripture, I am not interested in
trinitarian writers beliefs.
>> >No, Baal-zebub of Ekron is not really a god.
>>
>> of course he is a god.
>
>He is to you, not to the Bible.
Even to God he is a god. He mentions him specifically. To the people
that were worshipping him he was a god also wasn't he?? Therefore he
is a god. But he is not God.
> The gods of the nations are not real
>gods: "For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the
>heavens." (Psalms 96:5); "Of a truth, LORD, the kings of Assyria have
>destroyed the nations and their lands, And have cast their gods into the
>fire: *for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands*, wood and
>stone: therefore they have destroyed them." (2 Kings 19:17-18). The
>idols are false, vain, nugatory, "of nought": "Shew the things that are
>to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or
>do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye
>are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that
>chooseth you." (Isaiah 41:23-24).
>
>> >The Watchtower insists that, if Baal-zebub is called "the god of Ekron", well then, that's
>> >just what he must be. But the idols of the nations are not really gods,
>>
>> says who??
>
>The Bible: "They have moved me to jealousy with *that which is not God*;
>they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them
>to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to
>anger with a foolish nation." (Deuteronomy 32:21).
This does not prove your point. We know that baal was not God, you
aren't telling myself and those I work with or the JW's anything they
don't already know.
>> If you go to a beach, build three or 4 little sand castles
>> and put a wall around them and sit in the middle, are you not the god
>> of your own little creation?? Of course you are,
>
>You boast yourself a god amidst your sand-castles, just as did the King
>of Tyre. But do you know what God - the real one - did with the King of
>Tyre?: "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord
>GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I
>sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man,
>and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:...Behold,
>therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations:
>and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and
>they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the
>pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst
>of the seas. Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God?
>but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth
>thee." (Ezekiel 28:2-9).
Oh, but I would never claim to be God in the scenario I gave you :-)
>Please take a bit of friendly advice: when the Watchtower Society tells
>you you can call yourself 'a god' on the strength of the sand-castles
>you've built, decline the honor: avoiding blasphemy will lengthen your
>life expectancy.
I am not interested in what the watchtower tells me. As to being a
god, the Bible says we are gods anyway. Blasphemy?? Do you believe
that Christ is God?? If so, you should take your own advise.
><snip>
>> >The way the Watchtower tries to dispose of Christ's claim to be God
>> >isn't so much by denying outright that the Bible calls Him 'God' -
>> >after
>> >all, they'd have to do a lot of ripping to accomplish that.
>>
>> I wish you would stop lying. Christ NEVER claimed to be God at any
>> point in time throughout the Bible. He at no time stood up and said "
>> I am God"
>
>Of course He did. Why not read the Bible; the illiterate old men of the
>Watchtower Society are not summarizing it fairly for you. "Jesus said
>unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
>Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went
>out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."
>(John 8:58-59); "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said,
>Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
>you." (Exodus 3:14).
This does not make him God. He said I am, not I AM.
>And, what do you know, God's word stands, your editor's red pencil
>notwithstanding: "Saying, I am *Alpha and Omega, the first and the
>last*: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven
>churches which are in Asia;..." (Revelation 1:11); "Thus saith the LORD
>the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; *I am the first,
>and I am the last*; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6);
>"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; *I am the
>first, I also am the last*." (Isaiah 48:12).
I'm Sorry, but Revelation 1:11 does not say what you have written in
my bible. Mine says:
Revelation 1:11 (JB)
'Write down all that you see in a book, and send it to the seven
churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia
and Laodicea.
Christ doesn't say anything here about being the Alpha and Omega what
so ever. So are you again putting words in Christ's mouth??
><snip>
>> >"And unto the
>> >angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and
>> >the last, which was dead, and is alive..." (Revelation 2:8).
>>
>> As above, he doesn't say he is the Alpha and Omega does he, just that
>> he is the first and the last, of which we know that he is the first
>> and last of creation.
>
>Of course He says He's "Alpha and Omega". Throw it out one place, it'll
>just pop up in another: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is
>with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. *I am Alpha
>and Omega*, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
>(Revelation 22:12-13). The One who is 'coming quickly' is Jesus. Try
>as you might to strip the Bible of those scriptures impossible for your
>pagan polytheism, there's just too much there.
But who says it?? Not Christ, not these verses of Scripture, another
angel says it, how do we know this, simple, scripture tells us this
look for yourself:
Rev 22:8 - 10 (JB)
I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. When I had heard
and seen them all, I knelt at the feet of the angel who had shown them
to me, to worship him:
[9] but he said, 'Don't do that: I am a servant just like you and like
your brothers the prophets and like those who treasure what you have
written in this book. It is God that you must worship.'
[10] This, too, he said to me, 'Do not keep the prophecies in this
book a secret, because the Time is close.
So again you put words in Christ's mouth. Please also remember that
Christ is tells John what God told him to tell John. Look:
Rev 1:1
This is the revelation given by God to Jesus Christ so that he could
tell his servants about the things which are now to take place very
soon: he sent his angle to make it know to his servant John,
[2] and John has written down everything he saw and swears it is the
word of God guaranteed by Jesus Christ.
Oh that means Christ is still subservient to God isn't he :-)) There
goes the trinity out the window again. :-)
>> You are talking OT here. God is the First and last of everything, but
>> Christ is the first and last of creation.
>
>Who gave you a license to add words to God's revelation? Have you never
>heard, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be
>found a liar." (Proverbs 30:6)? Jesus Christ isn't 'the first and the
>last of creation', but "the first and the last".
excuse me, I hope you don't belong to the catholic church, if you do,
look to your own church about having a license to add words to God
Book. Or take them away as the case may be. As to being the first
and the last, he is also the first born from the dead :-) and he will
be the last at that as well :-)
><snip>
>> whose paganish views?? Look to your own churches pagan associations
>> first before you look at others so called pagan views.
>
>My church does not teach pagan polytheism. That moldy oldie, the idea
>that there are "many gods" just plain ain't Biblical, and it never will
>be: "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together:
>who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that
>time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just
>God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye
>saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
> I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in
>righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow,
>every tongue shall swear." (Isaiah 45:21-23).
Sorry, it is biblical in more than one place. Read your bible again.
>> I do not view
>> Christ as a god.
>
>My, a step of independence from Mama Watchtower. And please don't tell
>me you didn't learn your polytheism from them: it's inconceivable you
>could have invented this contrived nonsense about "many gods"
>independently.
Of course I didn't learn it from them, it came from the Bible.
Jabrae
>who are experts on ancient Greek, there seems to be near-universal
>agreement that the NWT version of John 1:1 is wrong.
>
If that is the case then the NWT is probably the most accurate since these
universal experts of the world are in the majority and the Bible is clear that
Satan is the ruler and god of this world and he is misleading all the earth.
Therefore whoever the MOST would be such as in translations, beware!!! For"
most "would be wrong because of Satans influence!
Jabrae
>that linguists (even _atheist_ linguists) tend to agree that the NWT
Dosen't matter either way. Jesus is both "a god" since angels are called such.
Ps. 97:7,9. Isa. 14:13 "...the gods assemble". Also Jesus can be called GOD
since angels are also called GOD such as at Acts 7:30-38 :"angel...I am
God...angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai". However since everyone knows
there is only one true God is this angel a true God or a false God???
Jabrae
>him alone, one cannot place him in a larger class of sons of the same
>kind. This however, is precisely what you have done.
Yes you can. A Firstborn Son is in a class of his own - only one is first.
Being the first gives him rights that other sons of a family do not have such
as inheritance rights. Therefore we see no angels are given a throne to rule
but Jesus is :"God will give him the throne" Luke 1:32. WHY? Why is Jesus
"given" something that if he was Almighty God he would already possess???
Almighty God is always King! Deut. 21:7 shows this unique sonship that a
firstborn Son has.
>Now the issue being addressed here is wether or not an identity can be
>drawn between Jesus Christ and Michael the archangel from the
>scriptures.
As Deut. 21:7 shows God's greatest creation would be his first. Who is the
first creation by God? Heb. 1:6. This is why Jesus is the prince or chief of
all angels - Michael the archangel at 1 thess. 4:6 shows this. If jesus was God
he would not have an angels voice at alll, he would have God's voice. Yet like
the angel who spoke to Moses he spoke God's message [God's trumpet] yet used
his own voice[archangels voice]. God Almighty would never use an inferior voice
if he himself was speaking as Jesus. Acts 7:30-38. Heb. 2:1.
Bret Wood
Jabrae wrote:
>
> If that is the case then the NWT is probably the most accurate since these
> universal experts of the world are in the majority and the Bible is clear that
> Satan is the ruler and god of this world and he is misleading all the earth.
> Therefore whoever the MOST would be such as in translations, beware!!! For"
> most "would be wrong because of Satans influence!
Well then, I'll write the "completely screwed up and totally wrong"
translation (refered to as CSUTW), and it will then be the most
accurate because I'll be the ONLY one who believes it is accurate.
-Bret Wood
-bret...@cs.uoregon.edu
Bret Wood
S wrote:
>
> <bret...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> >And a simple translation of the words without taking into account the
> >differing syntax of the languages is NOT a valid way to do a proper
> >translation.
>
> Your right, but changing what the original greek says simply to
> fulfill a false belief like the trinity is wrong also isn't it??
Sure it is. If that was what really happened. But, as I said, even
_athiest_ scholars (who have no interest in promoting any doctrine
of any sort) also agree that the NWT translation of John 1:1 is
incorrect.
If anyone is changing what the original Greek says simply to fulfill
a false belief, it is the authors of the NWT. Especially, since
not a SINGLE author of the NWT had ANY experience reading ancient
Greek. The only author who had any experience with the Greek
language at all had only finished 2/3 of a college sequence on
modern Greek. The rest of the group just had to take this one
guy's word on it. And he didn't really know what he was doing.
And yet you would have us believe that this ragtag group of
unqualified, illiterate (in ancient Greek) translators have created
the ONLY English translation of John 1:1 which is true to the
intent and meaning of the original ancient Greek? Come on.
-Bret Wood
-bret...@cs.uoregon.edu
Tony Ewen
S wrote in message <3747fb91...@news.net2000.com.au>...
>On Fri, 21 May 1999 11:00:53 +1000, "Tony Ewen" <aa...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>1. How many times does Isaiah refer to "Almighty God" (Answer: 0 -
always
>>>>"the mighty God")
>>>
>>>why?? Who is he talking about exactly? Give me a couple of verses to
>>>work with here as well.
>>
>>I would think it obvious that Isaiah would be referring to Yahweh don't
you?
>>What other god would he be honouring? If he honoured another god, how
would
>>that effect him being a prophet of Yahweh? This is a somewhat exclusive
>>office I would think.
>
>You didn't answer the question Tony...Why?? who is he talking about
>exactly?? Give me a couple of verses to work with here and I will be
>able to help and explain better for you.
>
question, but to make it absolutely clear.....
Given Isaiah's status as a prophet of Yahweh, he could therefore ONLY have
been talking about Yahweh. If he honoured another god, he would cease to be
a prophet of Yahweh. I do not consider additional verses necessary here, as
I am not seeking explaination but to explain.
If we accept that these are God's exact words (not an accurate understanding
of "inspiration" by the way), then what is God doing honouring another????
>>>>2. How many gods would Isaiah have served (Answer: 1)
>>>
>>>One, Almighty God. What did Isaiah write, what he wanted to or what
>>>Yahweh told or gave him to write??
>>
>>Given that Isaiah was a true prophet (technically an assumption but I
think
>>you'll agree to let that one pass), then it would have been what Yahweh
told
>>or gave him to write. Isaiah would have only recognised and honoured /
>>served one deity.
>
>Ok, so we agree that Yahweh told him what to write, so the idea that
>he only knew one God is irrelevant isn't it, because the words are
>God's not his :-)
Not really, if they're God's words, why would he honor another?
>
>>>>3. Are mighty and Almighty mutually exclusive? (Answer: No)
>>>
>>>Yes they are. If there is an Almighty God, he can not just be mighty
>>>can he, for Almighty is bigger than Mighty.
>>>
>>
>>Not so. Almighty INCLUDES (emphasis - not shouting) mighty. Mighty does
not
>>exclude almighty, but "just mighty" really doesn't mean anything.
Something
>>mighty CAN BE almighty (assuming that something is Yahweh), and something
>>almighty ALREADY includes mighty. In the context of Isaiah, mighty can be
>>best seen as an honorific, rather than a measure or power relative to the
>>absolute. Of course, if one accepts the use of mighty as a relative
>>comparison, then Yahweh is mighty compared to anything else. As just
noted,
>>this does not preclude him also being almighty.
>
>Maybe, but by your own admission, what Isaiah wrote was Gods words, in
>the books from Genesis to Songs of Solomon there are roughly 29 cases
>of Almighty God being used (this is before Isaiah) so why would God
>have used Almighty God then and only used mighty God in Isaiah?? Like
>I said, give me some verses to work with for your 1st question.
Other authors not relevant - we're discussing Isaiah, not Moses, Solomon or
any other human author. I would consider that God / his human authors would
have used those words most appropriate to the cultural and political setting
of the time and situation they were writing for. Perhaps "mighty" had more
meaning to the intended audience (or Isaiah) that Almighty. If you look at
the name Isaiah uses, it's Elohim. The "almighty" construct is not used with
that name (which has an emphasis on spirit), but solely with Yahweh (Jehovah
if you prefer). The "almighty" construct is actually part of a specific name
(I can't remember the hebrew word just at the moment so I'll look it up for
later) - a specific name of honor. But then, all of his names are to be
honoured.
>
>Concise Oxford Dictionary
>Almighty = 1. Having all possible power (esp. Almighty God) very great
>2. exceedingly
>
>Mighty = 1. a. powerful, strong, in body or mind; (bibl) miracles. 2.
>massive, bulky'; (colloq.) great, considerable; High and mighty.
>
>There is a definite difference between the words Mighty and Almighty,
>Mighty being lower or representing a lower position than Almighty. So
>as you can see from what you are trying to say, God lowered his own
>status if Isaiah wrote what God told him to.
No problem with the definitions, but...
How can this lowering be? hm.... Mighty is being used here as an
honourific - how can an honourific be a come-down? It does not follow. If
Isaiah doesn't use Almighty, then this relativity is irrelevant. I do not
consider that he lowers himself when accepting the honourific mighty.
Compare exalted and praised. Both honor God, but they are different. If one
took dictionary definitions a difference in rank would appear, but they are
still both applicable (and honourably applied) to God, does got lower
himself by "merely" being praised rather than exalted? I don't believe so.
I have said above that Almighty includes Mighty, so they are both applicable
to God anyway.
I do not agree that God lowered his status by using a "lesser" honorific. I
should also tell you that I don't rank the honourifics either, so the point
is somewhat moot to me.
>
>
>>>Alot, the words and the way they are written represent a difference,
>>>want proof, here look at this.
>>>
>>>a) the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead
>>>
>>>b) the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead
>>>
>>>Which is correct and why???
>>
>>Depends what you mean by Third Person verus third person. The first looks
>>like a title, whereas the second would be a statement of fact (which you
and
>>I would probably dispute the reality of). If the lowercase form where
true,
>>this does not preclude the title being truly applied. I consider them
both
>>to be true. Which term is more accurate - godhead or Godhead? And what's
>>the difference.
>>
>>As for me, I would only use this kind of capitalisation for names, so if I
>>wrote that sentence it would have read :
>>
>>c) the Holy Spirit is the third person of the godhead.
>
>So the Holy Spirit in your opinion is not God, because by your own
>statement of admission, Third Person would represent a name for a
>trinitarian would believe that the Holy Spirit being the Third Person
>of the trinity and thereby being God would signify that acceptance
>would it not??
I didn't say that. What I said was (reworded) that I don't like using
redundant titles.
Giving a title to a statement of fact is redundant.
>
>>This whole thing also assumes the acceptence of the term "godhead", which
I
>>understand JW's reject as being of pagan origins.
>
>Are you a JW?? If not what does it matter what the JW's accept and
>reject?
Simple, if "godhead" is not a true or valid concept, then the sentences are
false - regardless of the truth or otherwise of the other phrases. As it
happens I'm not a JW, and you'll probably have worked out that asking after
my "label" would be an exercise in frustration :) If the godhead concept is
accepted as truth and reality then, by definition, both sentences were true.
This is regardless of any artificial difference between a naming construct
and a factuality construct.
>
>>>>5. A Prince can be a head of state (see Monaco et al)
>>>
>>>Yes he can, but in this case we know he isn't is he. The prince of
>>>Heaven is Not God it is Michael, the Bible tells us this.
>>>
I should have added here that the prince of Heaven (your capitalisation) is
not the subject of discussion.
>>
>>In both cases I would consider the use of the term prince to be an
>>assignment of honor - not of subservient rank. Compare the use of lord in
>>various places. We know that in this world royals outrank nobles, yet the
>>most common address form given (at least in the modern western world) to
>>Yahweh is "lord", or "Lord". Does this diminish his kingship?
>
>The correct term given to God should be as a title goes is God. Our
>Lord is Christ, why, because God gave him that title and everything
>that comes with it, the right be called the Son of God.
Yahweh has a multitude of titles - all correct, all honouring. The
uppercase Lord is a title of titles (if you will) denoting the absolute
lordship of Christ. (yet more redundancy - though it should be stated that
these redundancies are intended as a worship form so, in a sense, they are
accceptable). If Christ is absolute Lord, and by being absolute Lord is
above all things, then he is either God, or greater in rank. Applying Lord
to Christ denotes his ABSOLUTE pre-eminence. It is, in fact, a statement of
trinitarian belief.
>
>>>Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of
>>>truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but
>>>Michael your prince.
>>>
>>
>>At the risk of starting another convoluted thread, while it is acceptable
to
>>give Michael the title prince, he is not the prince. In our world, even
>>princes have relative rankings. I'd rather not discuss Michael
specifically
>>at this time if you don't mind.
>
>Why?? The Bible tells us that Michael is a prince, if the Bible is
>the word of God, then to deny and say that Michael is not a prince
>means we deny God. does it not??
>
I didn't say that, I only said that I'd prefer not to discuss Michael. I
consider him irrelevant to this discussion.
>S
>
>http://truth.tsx.org/
>Please sign our Guestbook and do our questionarie, as
>well as the quizz while on our site.
All this is interesting, but I do not actually consider it of primary
(meaning, in this case, above all else) importance. That position is held by
your/my relationship with Christ / Yahweh.
If the relationship is right, then I consider all academic errors to be
ultimately forgiveable. Of course, that is not to downplay the importance of
this discussion (and I very much doubt that this will be our final
exchange)...
So, how is your relationship with Christ and the father?
yours in faith - a friendship offered
Tony
George Politis
> ancient Greek. We must rely on the translations provided by people
> who are experts on ancient Greek, there seems to be near-universal
Not quite right. I have looked into this.
The point is that the last clause has no definite article on "God".
This means that the NWT version is plausible, "the word was a god".
However, what the experts say is that an equally plausible translation
involves interchaning the order of subject and predicate (valid to
some extent even in modern Greek), with permission to omit the article
in the predicate since it occurs in the subject (I will have to take their
word on this one). This translates as "the word was God", with
(I'm not 100% sure but I think it's right) an emphasis on God,
i.e., "God was who the word was".
Conclusion, either translation is possible, and John 1:1 on its own
cannot be used as a basis for supporting either case.
Note that together with John 1:3, a better case against the NWT
can be made: "without him was not anything made that has been
made." In other words, consider everything that has been made.
Not a single created thing was made without the Word.
Since the Word made all created things, and he could not have
created himself, he cannot be created.
Now NWT translates this "apart from him..." instead of
"without him...", which has made some think that the Word is
some kind of exception. (This is from a real conversation.)
However, the statement makes no sense when interpreted
this way. Apart from the Word, i.e., if the Word was not
involved, there would be no created beings, no demigods,
no nothing. The Word IS GOD, whom Christians worship,
whether in the 2nd cent. or the 20th.
S
wrote:
>Actually if you re-read my answer you'll find that I did answer the
>question, but to make it absolutely clear.....
>Given Isaiah's status as a prophet of Yahweh, he could therefore ONLY have
>been talking about Yahweh. If he honoured another god, he would cease to be
>a prophet of Yahweh. I do not consider additional verses necessary here, as
>I am not seeking explaination but to explain.
You said this when you first raised these questions:
1. How many times does Isaiah refer to "Almighty God" (Answer: 0 -
always "the mighty God")
The word Mighty God is referred to 2 times in the book of Isaiah,
these verses are: Isa 9:6 and Isa 10:21. In both these cases Isaiah
is talking about Christ.
But you yourself stated that God told Isaiah what to write, it would
not have mattered whether he believed in Yahweh as the only God or
not, he would still have written what God told him to write, so your
argument dissolves with that explanation.
besides that, when you stop seeking you will never find anything. Ask
and you shall receive.
>If we accept that these are God's exact words (not an accurate understanding
>of "inspiration" by the way), then what is God doing honouring another????
Maybe he was honouring Christ because he wanted people to honour
Christ. After all, that's what he says about his Son.
>>Ok, so we agree that Yahweh told him what to write, so the idea that
>>he only knew one God is irrelevant isn't it, because the words are
>>God's not his :-)
>
>Not really, if they're God's words, why would he honor another?
see above.
>Other authors not relevant - we're discussing Isaiah, not Moses, Solomon or
>any other human author. I would consider that God / his human authors would
>have used those words most appropriate to the cultural and political setting
>of the time and situation they were writing for. Perhaps "mighty" had more
>meaning to the intended audience (or Isaiah) that Almighty. If you look at
>the name Isaiah uses, it's Elohim. The "almighty" construct is not used with
>that name (which has an emphasis on spirit), but solely with Yahweh (Jehovah
>if you prefer). The "almighty" construct is actually part of a specific name
>(I can't remember the hebrew word just at the moment so I'll look it up for
>later) - a specific name of honor. But then, all of his names are to be
>honoured.
This argument of yours is sloppy and has no grounds in fact or logic.
The Jews based alot of their faith on tradition, If Isaiah was writing
what God told him to write, then he would have used those words used
prior to the jewish traditions creeping in to bring them back to the
Truth.
>>Concise Oxford Dictionary
>>Almighty = 1. Having all possible power (esp. Almighty God) very great
>>2. exceedingly
>>
>>Mighty = 1. a. powerful, strong, in body or mind; (bibl) miracles. 2.
>>massive, bulky'; (colloq.) great, considerable; High and mighty.
>No problem with the definitions, but...
>
>How can this lowering be? hm.... Mighty is being used here as an
>honourific - how can an honourific be a come-down? It does not follow. If
>Isaiah doesn't use Almighty, then this relativity is irrelevant. I do not
>consider that he lowers himself when accepting the honourific mighty.
>Compare exalted and praised. Both honor God, but they are different. If one
>took dictionary definitions a difference in rank would appear, but they are
>still both applicable (and honourably applied) to God, does got lower
>himself by "merely" being praised rather than exalted? I don't believe so.
This is just nitpicking and a raping of the english language. Yes the
english language is hard, for those that don't naturally speak it as
well as those that do, but raping the english language and grammar to
prove a point that a simple dictionary can prove is just ridiculous.
Fact, the word Almighty is a higher Honourific than the word mighty,
why would God, having used the word Almighty as an Honourific have
lowered his OWN status in Isaiah by using the word Mighty instead,
unless of course he was talking about another. His Son maybe??
>I have said above that Almighty includes Mighty, so they are both applicable
>to God anyway.
>
>I do not agree that God lowered his status by using a "lesser" honorific. I
>should also tell you that I don't rank the honourifics either, so the point
>is somewhat moot to me.
then make them non-moot, study and show thyself worthy and stop
existing in ignorance of what your church tells you.
>I didn't say that. What I said was (reworded) that I don't like using
>redundant titles.
>Giving a title to a statement of fact is redundant.
But the trinity is not a statement of fact, simply a blasphemy created
by the catholic church and Satan and adopted by just about every other
church on this world.
>Yahweh has a multitude of titles - all correct, all honouring. The
>uppercase Lord is a title of titles (if you will) denoting the absolute
>lordship of Christ. (yet more redundancy - though it should be stated that
>these redundancies are intended as a worship form so, in a sense, they are
>accceptable). If Christ is absolute Lord, and by being absolute Lord is
>above all things, then he is either God, or greater in rank. Applying Lord
>to Christ denotes his ABSOLUTE pre-eminence. It is, in fact, a statement of
>trinitarian belief.
Accept that the trinity is a blasphemy against God and the fact that
the word Lord does not make one above all others. If I were a Lord in
England during the middle ages I would not be above a King or ever
above God for that matter.
>So, how is your relationship with Christ and the father?
My relationship with Yahweh and his Son Christ is good, but it could
be better and there is room for improvement. Thank you for asking.
God Bless
ResLight
>Note that together with John 1:3, a better case against the NWT
>can be made: "without him was not anything made that has been
>made." In other words, consider everything that has been made.
>Not a single created thing was made without the Word.
>Since the Word made all created things, and he could not have
>created himself, he cannot be created.
>
>Now NWT translates this "apart from him..." instead of
>"without him...", which has made some think that the Word is
>some kind of exception. (This is from a real conversation.)
>However, the statement makes no sense when interpreted
>this way. Apart from the Word, i.e., if the Word was not
>involved, there would be no created beings, no demigods,
>no nothing. The Word IS GOD, whom Christians worship,
>whether in the 2nd cent. or the 20th.
The Greek word rendered "all things" [panta] does not carry the absoluteness
that we give it in English. It looks to the context for meaning. It is used
again in John 1:9, where the KJV translates *every* in reference to man. In
John 4:25 this word is translated "all things", but it is evident that it
does not mean absolutely all things of the universe. The same could be said
of John 14:26. In John 19:28 we read that Jesus knew that all things had
been finished, not all things of the universe, but rather the fulfillment of
the prophecy. A variation of the word is translated "whosoever" in John
3:15,16; 4:13 and several other places in the Gospel of John.
The "all things" that came into existence "through" or "by means of" him is
shown in the following verse and verse 10. "in him was life, and the life
was the light of men." "He was in the world, and the world was made by
[through, by means of] him." The "all things" therefore would not include
him, for the world of mankind was created *through* him before he came into
the world of mankind, and he was created directly by God.
Some various translations of John 1:3,4:
All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came
into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the
light of all people. -- NRSV.
All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.
What came into existence in him was life, and the life was the light of
men. - The Bible in Basic English
All things received being through him, and without him not one [thing]
received being which has received being. In him was life, and the life was
the light of men. -- Webster
Where one places the period (or it could be a semi-colon) gives it a
slightly different meaning. This is where Ivan Panin's Numeric text would
come in handy in determining where the period should be. I don't have a copy
and I am not sure where Ivan Panin's text puts the period(s) here. Does
anyone know?
However, the placement of the period doesn't really matter in the overall
picture.
Ronald R. Day
Restoration Light
http://www.reslight.addr.com/
Tony Ewen
S wrote in message <37511fc9...@news.net2000.com.au>...
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 10:41:07 +1000, "Tony Ewen" <aa...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Actually if you re-read my answer you'll find that I did answer the
>>question, but to make it absolutely clear.....
>>Given Isaiah's status as a prophet of Yahweh, he could therefore ONLY have
>>been talking about Yahweh. If he honoured another god, he would cease to
be
>>a prophet of Yahweh. I do not consider additional verses necessary here,
as
>>I am not seeking explaination but to explain.
>
>You said this when you first raised these questions:
>1. How many times does Isaiah refer to "Almighty God" (Answer: 0 -
>always "the mighty God")
>
>The word Mighty God is referred to 2 times in the book of Isaiah,
>these verses are: Isa 9:6 and Isa 10:21. In both these cases Isaiah
>is talking about Christ.
>
>But you yourself stated that God told Isaiah what to write, it would
>not have mattered whether he believed in Yahweh as the only God or
>not, he would still have written what God told him to write, so your
>argument dissolves with that explanation.
>
One point to add (just to complicate things that little bit more :) )....
We can see easily, living in "AD" as we do, that Isaiah meant Christ in
these two verses. We, after all, have the advantage of hindsight. What do
you think the intended recipients (Israel) would have understood by "mighty
God"? Particularly considering that the name used (Elohim) was their common
name for Yahweh.
>besides that, when you stop seeking you will never find anything. Ask
>and you shall receive.
>
Agreed, with the comment that asking ceases for a specific thing after it is
received.
>>If we accept that these are God's exact words (not an accurate
understanding
>>of "inspiration" by the way), then what is God doing honouring another????
>
>Maybe he was honouring Christ because he wanted people to honour
>Christ. After all, that's what he says about his Son.
Is this the same "Jealous God" who's commandments include "You shall have no
other gods before me."? This was a prophecy of Yahweh, intended to lead the
people to honour Yahweh.
>
>
>>>Ok, so we agree that Yahweh told him what to write, so the idea that
>>>he only knew one God is irrelevant isn't it, because the words are
>>>God's not his :-)
>>
>>Not really, if they're God's words, why would he honor another?
>
>see above.
Noted.
>
>
>>Other authors not relevant - we're discussing Isaiah, not Moses, Solomon
or
>>any other human author. I would consider that God / his human authors
would
>>have used those words most appropriate to the cultural and political
setting
>>of the time and situation they were writing for. Perhaps "mighty" had more
>>meaning to the intended audience (or Isaiah) that Almighty. If you look at
>>the name Isaiah uses, it's Elohim. The "almighty" construct is not used
with
>>that name (which has an emphasis on spirit), but solely with Yahweh
(Jehovah
>>if you prefer). The "almighty" construct is actually part of a specific
name
>>(I can't remember the hebrew word just at the moment so I'll look it up
for
>>later) - a specific name of honor. But then, all of his names are to be
>>honoured.
>
>This argument of yours is sloppy and has no grounds in fact or logic.
>The Jews based alot of their faith on tradition, If Isaiah was writing
>what God told him to write, then he would have used those words used
>prior to the jewish traditions creeping in to bring them back to the
>Truth.
Check your history and your Hebrew lexicon then. The word in 9:6 is Elohim.
I was mistaken about "almighty" though, when I checked it I found that it's
part of another name of God - being "El Shaddai" and not connected to
"YHWH".
About the language reversion - this cannot be claimed without an external (a
priori?) assumption that this would occur. Why then would he have used
Elohim instead of Yahweh or El Shaddai? Which of his names do you honor (or
not)? Why then do different authors (even mutual contemporaries) use
differing language styles? Compare the gospels - Why is John so different is
style to, say, Luke? Inspiration is not a matter of robotic dictation.
I agree though that the argument was written in a hurry (which I prefer not
to do). But no grounds? I disagree with that. Isaiah was a Jew from one
particular era, not from another. Claiming that he would use the forms of an
earlier time because he was writing what God wanted him to write is a bit
like saying that a modern prophet would use KJV english instead of modern
(flaws in the argument accepted - it's an alegory).
>
>>>Concise Oxford Dictionary
>>>Almighty = 1. Having all possible power (esp. Almighty God) very great
>>>2. exceedingly
>>>
>>>Mighty = 1. a. powerful, strong, in body or mind; (bibl) miracles. 2.
>>>massive, bulky'; (colloq.) great, considerable; High and mighty.
>
>>No problem with the definitions, but...
>>
>>How can this lowering be? hm.... Mighty is being used here as an
>>honourific - how can an honourific be a come-down? It does not follow. If
>>Isaiah doesn't use Almighty, then this relativity is irrelevant. I do not
>>consider that he lowers himself when accepting the honourific mighty.
>>Compare exalted and praised. Both honor God, but they are different. If
one
>>took dictionary definitions a difference in rank would appear, but they
are
>>still both applicable (and honourably applied) to God, does got lower
>>himself by "merely" being praised rather than exalted? I don't believe so.
>
>This is just nitpicking and a raping of the english language. Yes the
>english language is hard, for those that don't naturally speak it as
>well as those that do, but raping the english language and grammar to
>prove a point that a simple dictionary can prove is just ridiculous.
>Fact, the word Almighty is a higher Honourific than the word mighty,
>why would God, having used the word Almighty as an Honourific have
>lowered his OWN status in Isaiah by using the word Mighty instead,
>unless of course he was talking about another. His Son maybe??
>
Ah yes, I've been called a linguistic nitpicker more often than I can recall
:). One thing though; if an argument cannot withstand nitpicking it is not a
good enough argument in the first place - particularly if the subject matter
is of eternal consequence. Consider it a form of heavy duty (destructive?)
testing.
Yes, Almighty is a higher honourific (why the H btw?) than mighty, but they
still are both true of Yahweh, and are both honourifics. So, what is the
problem? If I ascribe "mighty" to Yahweh (and I do), then am I referring to
another when I ascribe "almighty" to him? And - just to be cheaky - does
the capitalisation make a difference?
On language, please note that Isaiah calls him "The Mighty God", not "a
mighty god". There's an ocean of difference there. Who is The (insert
honourific of choice here) God? (ref John 1 - and yes I do realise it's a
different book)
I have an analogy of this that I'll share via email (if I remember to do so,
remind me privately if I forget) that I hope will explain more fully where
I'm coming from. I'll do that privately as sharing it publicly would lead to
a kind of attention that I would not appreciate.
I do not consider that using or accepting a lower honourific lowers ones own
status. For 3rd parties - I do not consider that using or ascribing a lesser
honourific lowers the status of the ascribed. Honour is still applied.
So we have a basic disagreement on the result of ascribing relative
honourifics. Maybe we're looking at different parts of the biscuit. You
appear to be looking at it from a standpoint of rank. I'm looking at it from
a standpoint of honour / not honour. To me, it looks like you're
subconsciously adding "only" to mighty and getting an issue with a resulting
limitation. "only" isn't in the text, nor do I consider that it should be
implied. There is nothing "only mighty" about it. It's a bit like saying
"merely awesome", if you get my drift.
>>I have said above that Almighty includes Mighty, so they are both
applicable
>>to God anyway.
>>
>>I do not agree that God lowered his status by using a "lesser" honorific.
I
>>should also tell you that I don't rank the honourifics either, so the
point
>>is somewhat moot to me.
>
>then make them non-moot, study and show thyself worthy and stop
>existing in ignorance of what your church tells you.
>
Christ himself declares me worthy - through his blood and sacrifice. Aside
from that I can do nothing to prove my worth. In any event, how does ranking
of honourific affect my worth before God?
In fact, I can't remember the last time the church I attends addressed this
particular issue. The only statement they have is in their constitution.
That being said, what my church teaches is fairly transparent - and open to
didactic analysis from any member. They encourage us to think through the
points raised through sermons and studies. Debate is also encouraged.
>
>>I didn't say that. What I said was (reworded) that I don't like using
>>redundant titles.
>>Giving a title to a statement of fact is redundant.
>
>But the trinity is not a statement of fact, simply a blasphemy created
>by the catholic church and Satan and adopted by just about every other
>church on this world.
>
I never stated it was a fact. My meaning here is about grammar, rather than
the truth (or otherwise) of the content. even lies are generally in the form
of statements of fact.
I was initially addressing the term "godhead". Also I used the phrase
"statement of fact" to refer to the type of sentence. I did not intend to
imply acceptance, or otherwise, of the truth (or otherwise) of the
statement. Rather, my comments were intended to be an analysis of the
sentences - an exegesis if you prefer. Establishing what each sentence meant
was a required step before stating agreement or not.
I believe you'll find though that most formal statements of trinity use the
nominative for (capitals etc) rather than the fact form anyway - so there is
some considerable scope for interpretation even if you do accept it. Both it
and "godhead" have equally problematic origins, though the nominative forms
(given a proper nominative meaning of course) are less problematic for those
who have difficulty with the "statement of fact" forms.
>
>>Yahweh has a multitude of titles - all correct, all honouring. The
>>uppercase Lord is a title of titles (if you will) denoting the absolute
>>lordship of Christ. (yet more redundancy - though it should be stated that
>>these redundancies are intended as a worship form so, in a sense, they are
>>accceptable). If Christ is absolute Lord, and by being absolute Lord is
^^^^
^^^^
That should be "absolute lord", see below for clarification of the
difference
>>above all things, then he is either God, or greater in rank. Applying Lord
<break in on self> as against lord <end break>
>>to Christ denotes his ABSOLUTE pre-eminence. It is, in fact, a statement
of
>>trinitarian belief.
>
>Accept that the trinity is a blasphemy against God and the fact that
>the word Lord does not make one above all others. If I were a Lord in
>England during the middle ages I would not be above a King or ever
>above God for that matter.
>
I did not mean to imply acceptance or otherwise of trinity doctrine here.
Maybe I should have left that last sentence out? It detracts from the rest
of the statement.
See note re trinity above. You cannot be Lord in England, but you can be a
lord. Can you see the difference? Even the King called God Lord. He didn't
call him lord, (There are many instances in official records of this - eg.
formal prayers for openings of parliament etc. and no, I don't have
references to hand) though if one were to look at it as a way of saying "you
are higher than I" it would have been correct for him to.
Being a lord in England does not put you above a king (true), but Lord being
applied to Christ / Yahweh does not put the king above God. This, at least,
we agree on.
>
>>So, how is your relationship with Christ and the father?
>
>My relationship with Yahweh and his Son Christ is good, but it could
>be better and there is room for improvement. Thank you for asking.
Glad to hear it.
>
>God Bless
To you also.
>
>S
>
>http://truth.tsx.org/
>Please sign our Guestbook and do our questionarie, as
>well as the quizz while on our site.
If I write any more in this message I'll be here all day! So bye for now.
Tony
George Politis
> The Greek word rendered "all things" [panta] does not carry the absoluteness
> that we give it in English. It looks to the context for meaning. It is used
> again in John 1:9, where the KJV translates *every* in reference to man. In
> John 4:25 this word is translated "all things", but it is evident that it
> does not mean absolutely all things of the universe. The same could be said
> of John 14:26. In John 19:28 we read that Jesus knew that all things had
> been finished, not all things of the universe, but rather the fulfillment of
> the prophecy. A variation of the word is translated "whosoever" in John
> 3:15,16; 4:13 and several other places in the Gospel of John.
Fair enough.
> The "all things" that came into existence "through" or "by means of" him is
> shown in the following verse and verse 10. "in him was life, and the life
> was the light of men." "He was in the world, and the world was made by
> [through, by means of] him." The "all things" therefore would not include
> him, for the world of mankind was created *through* him before he came into
> the world of mankind, and he was created directly by God.
Verse 3 says, "all things were made through him".
Up to here, you would be right. I wouldn't be able to press the point.
My argument is from the rest of the verse,
"and without him was not anything made that was made".
This emphasises and clarifies the issue and identifies the scope of the
"all things", i.e., everything made. Not anything made, not a single
created speck, could have been made without him.
He therefore cannot be created.
Fredericka
> >> I don't deny that there is only one God.
>
> >Sure you do. You claim that there are "many gods":
>
> of course I do, its true, there are many gods, but there is only one
> God or one Living God if you like.
Since small letters had not been invented in Bible times, it's hard to
see how this ludicrous distinction can save your sinking ship of
polytheism. This ancient doctrine - that "there are many gods" - is the
teaching of the Watchtower Society. That's polytheism, by the
dictionary: "polytheism...[Gr. 'polys', many, 'theos', god.]. The
doctrine of a plurality of gods. - polytheist...A person who believes in
a plurality of gods." (Webster's International).
The Bible, by contrast, teaches monotheism: 'monotheism...[Gr. 'monos',
single, and 'Theos', God.] The doctrine or belief of the existence of
one God only." (Webster's International). When Christians ask the JW's
how they reconcile their polytheism with the Bible's monotheism, they
respond with by contorting language into the most uncomfortable,
Yogi-style postures, redefining 'monotheism', 'polytheism', and every
other word that gets in their way. Yet by the dictionary, they are
polytheists, not monotheists.
> >>[S] Even in the NC the Bible
> >> tells us that their are many gods, here look for yourself :-)
> >
> >If there are "many gods", as you claim, then there is not only One God,
> >as the Bible teaches.
>
> Yes there is, even the Bible tells us that there are many gods but
> only One God.
No, the Bible says no such thing; that's the man-made doctrine of the
Watchtower Society. The Bible tells us that there is only One God: "Yet
I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god
but me: for there is no saviour beside me." (Hosea 13:4).
Bizarrely, the Watchtower finds in the fulminations of the prophets of
Israel against the false gods of the nations...proof that those
imposters are real gods after all! Why else would they be called
'gods', they wonder?: "And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh,
this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold."
(Exodus 32:31). The geniuses of the Watchtower read that and exclaim,
'See? There really are "gods of gold"!'
Their 'logic' is that of the old conundrum, 'Is a fake rose a rose?'
'Of course it's a rose,' sputter the senile old men of the Watchtower;
'why would it be called a 'fake rose' if it wasn't?' Lewis Carroll had
a bit of fun pretending that the 'Mock Turtle' of 'Mock Turtle Soup' was
a real creature; after all, if Turtle Soup is made from turtle meat,
then 'Mock Turtle Soup' must be made from the flesh of a 'Mock Turtle',
right?
The truth of the matter is that words like 'fake' and 'mock', or the
Bible's 'strange' as in 'strange gods', are *PRIVATIVES*. Though they
look like harmless adjectives like 'red' or 'pretty', they do not
innocently modify the nouns to which they are attached, but rather
corrosively bore away at their insides until nothing is left. A 'fake
rose' isn't really a rose after all - no more than a false god is a god!
> >The Bible knows of only One God: "Thus saith the
> >LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the
> >first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I,
> >shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I
> >appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall
> >come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not
> >I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my
> >witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not
> >any." (Isaiah 44:6-8).
>
> >This creates a problem for the Watchtower Society, which wishes to deny
> >the Deity of Jesus Christ,
>
> excuse me, I hate to put a damper on you, if you are refering to deity
> of Jesus Christ meaning that he is God, then you are mistaken, for
> Christ is not God.
Sure He is: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh
Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:5);
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word
of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19).
> > in spite of passages like John 1:1: "In the
> >beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
> >God", and John 20:28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord
> >and my God." What's their solution to the dilemma? Polytheism! - like
> >people say, everything old is new again. A hit in ancient times, why
> >not revive the idea that there are "many gods"?
>
> Yes yes, I have discussed these verse many times, to no avail, I am
> not going to discuss them again at this point in time, see some of my
> other posts as well as posts from others about these verses.
Sorry, I'll pass; I have a limited tolerance for sub-literate prose.
> >Though the Watchtower makes strained efforts to differentiate their
> >polytheism from the pagan brand, in fact the two are indistinguishable.
> > Like the Watchtower, the pagans of old balanced atop their jam-packed
> >pantheons one head honcho: Zeus, Odin, Jupiter. Indeed, the pagan
> >apologist Porphyry argues that God can't really be a 'King' without
> >having other gods to lord it over. After all, human 'kings' rule over
> >others of their own kind, not pigs and sheep:
>
> Whose pagan views, look to the trinity before you accuse other
> churches about pagan beliefs, the catholic church has more pagan
> beliefs in it than any of the other churches.
You're preaching old-fashioned pagan polytheism, yet you pretend to find
'pagan' characteristics in *others*! You're offering the whole pagan
bandwagon, mobs of 'gods' darkening the skies; what did old Porphyry
have to wow the masses that you don't? Compared with your thousands of
gods, the Roman Catholic church, as other Christians, know of only One.
Which is pagan? Your polytheism, of course.
> >"Let us explore completely this matter of the monarchy of the only God
> >and the manifold rule of those who are revered as gods. Your
> >[Christian] idea of the single rule is amiss, for a monarch is not the
> >only man alive but the only man who rules.
> >
> >"He rules, obviously, over his kinsmen and those like himself. Take for
> >example the emperor Hadrian: he was a monarch because he ruled over
> >those who were like him by race and nature - not because he existed
> >alone somewhere or lorded it over oxen and sheep, as some poor shepherd
> >might do. In the same way: the supreme God would not be supreme unless
> >he ruled over other gods." (Porphyry's 'Against the Christians', The
> >Literary Remains, by R. Joseph Hoffman, Chapter 10, p. 83-84).
>
> If you want to do this, quote scripture, I am not interested in
> trinitarian writers beliefs.
<sigh> I've talked to Jehovah's Witnesses enough times that I ought to
know you have to explain everything to them very, very simply. So let
me go back to square one. Porphyry, quoted above, is not a Christian,
but rather a pagan polytheist like yourself. He thought, as do you,
that "there are many gods". I'm quoting from a polemic he wrote against
the rising Christian church. In the passage I quote above, he corrects
the Christian misconception (as you and he see it) that there is only
one God.
Can you perceive any difference between what Porphyry believed, and what
you believe? I can't. His crowded pantheon, like yours, had one top
banana perched atop it. What's the difference between Porphyry's Zeus
and the Watchtower's mythologized 'Jehovah'? Both are the head honchos
of bloated pagan pantheons. How different the living God of the Bible:
He is the only God in existence!: "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou
mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside
him...Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the
LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is
none else." (Deuteronomy 4:35-39).
> >> >No, Baal-zebub of Ekron is not really a god.
> >>
> >> of course he is a god.
> >
> >He is to you, not to the Bible.
>
> Even to God he is a god. He mentions him specifically. To the people
> that were worshipping him he was a god also wasn't he?? Therefore he
> is a god. But he is not God.
Again, you're falling into the fallacy that a false god is really a god,
just like a 'fake rose' is a rose. It's a perversion of language.
Phoney-baloney 'gods' like the Baals are not the real article: "Everyone
is stupid and without knowledge; goldsmiths are all put to shame by
their idols; for the images are false, and there is no breath in them.
They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment
they shall perish." (Jeremiah 10:14-15); "Can mortals make for
themselves gods? Such are no gods!" (Jeremiah 16:20, NRSV). The
Watchtower owns Baal-zebub of Ekron as a real god, Christians do not.
He's not the real article - there is only One who is. Gods like Baal
are "no gods".
> > The gods of the nations are not real
> >gods: "For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the
> >heavens." (Psalms 96:5); "Of a truth, LORD, the kings of Assyria have
> >destroyed the nations and their lands, And have cast their gods into the
> >fire: *for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands*, wood and
> >stone: therefore they have destroyed them." (2 Kings 19:17-18). The
> >idols are false, vain, nugatory, "of nought": "Shew the things that are
> >to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or
> >do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye
> >are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that
> >chooseth you." (Isaiah 41:23-24).
> >
> >> >The Watchtower insists that, if Baal-zebub is called "the god of Ekron",
> >> >well then, that's
> >> >just what he must be. But the idols of the nations are not really gods,
> >>
> >> says who??
> >
> >The Bible: "They have moved me to jealousy with *that which is not God*;
> >they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them
> >to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to
> >anger with a foolish nation." (Deuteronomy 32:21).
>
> This does not prove your point. We know that baal was not God, you
> aren't telling myself and those I work with or the JW's anything they
> don't already know.
You make the preposterous claim that he's a real god. You're a pagan
polytheist, pure and simple! Did you know that Moses prescribed the
death penalty for people like you?
> >> If you go to a beach, build three or 4 little sand castles
> >> and put a wall around them and sit in the middle, are you not the god
> >> of your own little creation?? Of course you are,
> >
> >You boast yourself a god amidst your sand-castles, just as did the King
> >of Tyre. But do you know what God - the real one - did with the King of
> >Tyre?: "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord
> >GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I
> >sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man,
> >and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:...Behold,
> >therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations:
> >and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and
> >they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the
> >pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst
> >of the seas. Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God?
> >but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth
> >thee." (Ezekiel 28:2-9).
>
> Oh, but I would never claim to be God in the scenario I gave you :-)
Please notice that's exactly what you did:
> >> If you go to a beach, build three or 4 little sand castles
> >> and put a wall around them and sit in the middle, are you not the god
> >> of your own little creation?? Of course you are,
Of course, the Bible is written entirely in capital letters, so your
fanciful and whimsical capitalizations reflect nothing in the text.
> >Please take a bit of friendly advice: when the Watchtower Society tells
> >you you can call yourself 'a god' on the strength of the sand-castles
> >you've built, decline the honor: avoiding blasphemy will lengthen your
> >life expectancy.
>
> I am not interested in what the watchtower tells me. As to being a
> god, the Bible says we are gods anyway. Blasphemy?? Do you believe
> that Christ is God?? If so, you should take your own advise.
Obviously it's not blasphemy to own Christ as God; Jesus blessed Thomas
for doing so: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my
God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
(John 20:28-29).
<snip>
> >> I wish you would stop lying. Christ NEVER claimed to be God at any
> >> point in time throughout the Bible. He at no time stood up and said "
> >> I am God"
> >
> >Of course He did. Why not read the Bible; the illiterate old men of the
> >Watchtower Society are not summarizing it fairly for you. "Jesus said
> >unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
> >Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went
> >out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."
> >(John 8:58-59); "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said,
> >Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
> >you." (Exodus 3:14).
>
> This does not make him God. He said I am, not I AM.
Do you honestly think your ridiculous capitalizations correspond to
anything in the Biblical text? Small letters weren't invented till
centuries later! Many modern conveniences, like small letters, Saran
Wrap, and sliced bread, had not yet been discovered by human ingenuity
in Bible times. Are you really so gullible as to believe the
Watchtower's taught you something meaningful about the Bible text by
teaching your these fanciful captilizations?
> >And, what do you know, God's word stands, your editor's red pencil
> >notwithstanding: "Saying, I am *Alpha and Omega, the first and the
> >last*: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven
> >churches which are in Asia;..." (Revelation 1:11); "Thus saith the LORD
> >the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; *I am the first,
> >and I am the last*; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6);
> >"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; *I am the
> >first, I also am the last*." (Isaiah 48:12).
>
> I'm Sorry, but Revelation 1:11 does not say what you have written in
> my bible. Mine says:
Since the same thing is repeated in other verses, how can you think
translation-shopping can rid you of the difficulty? You obviously
aren't interested in understanding the Bible, but only in salvaging the
man-made doctrine you've been taught.
<snip>
> >Of course He says He's "Alpha and Omega". Throw it out one place, it'll
> >just pop up in another: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is
> >with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. *I am Alpha
> >and Omega*, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
> >(Revelation 22:12-13). The One who is 'coming quickly' is Jesus. Try
> >as you might to strip the Bible of those scriptures impossible for your
> >pagan polytheism, there's just too much there.
>
> But who says it?? Not Christ, not these verses of Scripture, another
> angel says it, how do we know this, simple, scripture tells us this
> look for yourself:
>
> Rev 22:8 - 10 (JB)
> I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. When I had heard
> and seen them all, I knelt at the feet of the angel who had shown them
> to me, to worship him:
> [9] but he said, 'Don't do that: I am a servant just like you and like
> your brothers the prophets and like those who treasure what you have
> written in this book. It is God that you must worship.'
> [10] This, too, he said to me, 'Do not keep the prophecies in this
> book a secret, because the Time is close.
Do you honestly think it's John's fellow-creature who says "I am Alpha
and Omega"? Now you're wandering off into Jabrae's angelology. The
Bible condemns your idolatry: "Let no man beguile you of your reward in
a voluntary humility and *worshipping of angels*, intruding into those
things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind..."
(Colossians 2:18).
<snip>
> >> You are talking OT here. God is the First and last of everything, but
> >> Christ is the first and last of creation.
> >
> >Who gave you a license to add words to God's revelation? Have you never
> >heard, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be
> >found a liar." (Proverbs 30:6)? Jesus Christ isn't 'the first and the
> >last of creation', but "the first and the last".
>
> excuse me, I hope you don't belong to the catholic church,
If you don't stop foaming at the mouth, somebody might call Animal
Control. Why do you hate these people so much you can't stop gibbering
about them? Were you abused by a priest as a child or something? No,
I'm not a Roman Catholic; what a shameful 'religion' you're peddling,
based on nothing but hatred for another group of people!
<snip>
> >My church does not teach pagan polytheism. That moldy oldie, the idea
> >that there are "many gods" just plain ain't Biblical, and it never will
> >be: "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together:
> >who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that
> >time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just
> >God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye
> >saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
> > I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in
> >righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow,
> >every tongue shall swear." (Isaiah 45:21-23).
>
> Sorry, it is biblical in more than one place. Read your bible again.
No, Charles Taze Russell invented it in the nineteenth century;
Christians have never believed that "there are many gods". It's one of
the dumber ideas the modern-day cult world has given us.
<snip>
> >My, a step of independence from Mama Watchtower. And please don't tell
> >me you didn't learn your polytheism from them: it's inconceivable you
> >could have invented this contrived nonsense about "many gods"
> >independently.
>
> Of course I didn't learn it from them, it came from the Bible.
Of course you never learned your pagan polytheism from the Bible; the
Bible teaches monotheism! I gather you've taken what Mama Watchtower
taught you and gone off and founded your own hate group. What was wrong
with the original-strength product that you felt you had to start up
your own new, improved brand?
Fredericka
Jabrae
>single, and 'Theos', God.] The doctrine or belief of the existence of
>one God only."
That is not Trinity for trinity is not just one God but three in one God. Since
belief in trinity is dependent upon belief that all called God in Bible is God
since there is only one then why does your own Bible teach differently. For
example Moses is called God so is he a true god or a false god? Ex. 7:1.
Obviously he represented God which is why angels and Jesus are also called God.
Acts 7:30-38. Jn. 1:1.>Since small letters had not been invented in Bible
times, it's hard to
>see how this ludicrous distinction can save your sinking ship of
>polytheism. This ancient doctrine - that "there are many gods" - is the
>teaching of the Watchtower Society.
Funny you state EXACTLY what your own Bible says and say it is what the WT
teaches. Hmm!!! 1 Cor. 8.
S
wrote:
>>The word Mighty God is referred to 2 times in the book of Isaiah,
>>these verses are: Isa 9:6 and Isa 10:21. In both these cases Isaiah
>>is talking about Christ.
>>
>>But you yourself stated that God told Isaiah what to write, it would
>>not have mattered whether he believed in Yahweh as the only God or
>>not, he would still have written what God told him to write, so your
>>argument dissolves with that explanation.
>>
>
>One point to add (just to complicate things that little bit more :) )....
>
>We can see easily, living in "AD" as we do, that Isaiah meant Christ in
>these two verses. We, after all, have the advantage of hindsight. What do
>you think the intended recipients (Israel) would have understood by "mighty
>God"? Particularly considering that the name used (Elohim) was their common
>name for Yahweh.
This is an interesting point but irrelevant. Why, because doing this
would involve using tradition to interpret Scripture and we are told
not to do that. I understand what you are trying to get at, but it is
irrelevant at this point what Isaiah thought, just what he wrote.
>Is this the same "Jealous God" who's commandments include "You shall have no
>other gods before me."? This was a prophecy of Yahweh, intended to lead the
>people to honour Yahweh.
Its not a prophecy from God, it is a commandment, it is the Law.
Worship of God and God himself should always come before Christ.
Christ is the Son, through which all things were made and through
which all things will return. We don't pray straight to God now do
we, we pray to God through Christ, everything we ask God for we ask
for in the name of or through Christ.
>About the language reversion - this cannot be claimed without an external (a
>priori?) assumption that this would occur. Why then would he have used
>Elohim instead of Yahweh or El Shaddai? Which of his names do you honor (or
>not)? Why then do different authors (even mutual contemporaries) use
>differing language styles? Compare the gospels - Why is John so different is
>style to, say, Luke? Inspiration is not a matter of robotic dictation.
Luke wasn't even an apostle, he was also from memory educated. John
wasn't. As God's Names, I use Jehovah, Yahweh and Elohim
interchangeably.
>I agree though that the argument was written in a hurry (which I prefer not
>to do). But no grounds? I disagree with that. Isaiah was a Jew from one
>particular era, not from another. Claiming that he would use the forms of an
>earlier time because he was writing what God wanted him to write is a bit
>like saying that a modern prophet would use KJV english instead of modern
>(flaws in the argument accepted - it's an alegory).
Even Isaiah wouldn't have lowered God's status from Almighty to Mighty
though.
>Ah yes, I've been called a linguistic nitpicker more often than I can recall
>:). One thing though; if an argument cannot withstand nitpicking it is not a
>good enough argument in the first place - particularly if the subject matter
>is of eternal consequence. Consider it a form of heavy duty (destructive?)
>testing.
The Bible is a word game as it stands in English, it really is. Each
word should be looked at and understood. A dictionary is the best way
to understand those words.
>Yes, Almighty is a higher honourific (why the H btw?) than mighty, but they
>still are both true of Yahweh, and are both honourifics. So, what is the
>problem? If I ascribe "mighty" to Yahweh (and I do), then am I referring to
>another when I ascribe "almighty" to him? And - just to be cheaky - does
>the capitalisation make a difference?
In the words mighty and almighty, no I don't see that it makes a
difference. I understand the extent of what you are talking about.
>Christ himself declares me worthy - through his blood and sacrifice. Aside
>from that I can do nothing to prove my worth. In any event, how does ranking
>of honourific affect my worth before God?
Study of God's word is what should be done, its the only way we can
hope to pull ourselves out of the mire of rubbish that the churches,
one in particular has had 1500 years to plant with us.
>In fact, I can't remember the last time the church I attends addressed this
>particular issue. The only statement they have is in their constitution.
>That being said, what my church teaches is fairly transparent - and open to
>didactic analysis from any member. They encourage us to think through the
>points raised through sermons and studies. Debate is also encouraged.
Most churches don't discuss this issue because to most of the
churches, Jesus was God and the whole trinity blasphemy is accepted.
>I never stated it was a fact. My meaning here is about grammar, rather than
>the truth (or otherwise) of the content. even lies are generally in the form
>of statements of fact.
Yes that's true, they are, and generally collapse, hopefully this lie
and the others will collapse before it is too late.
Les Brown
>On Thu, 20 May 1999 11:49:36 +1000, "Tony Ewen" <aa...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
>
>><cutting the bit's I'm not touching (only addressing one little piece of
>>post>
>><end cut for now>
>>>Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
>>>government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
>>>Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
>>>Prince of Peace.
>>>
No, there is no "will be called". The whole phrase was written in the
Hebrew in the past tense.
Also: It was not unusual to call someone with G-d's name in it. For
example; Eliav - G-d Father, Bariah - Son of G-d, Elijah - L-rd G-d.
It would take an absolute fool to think that all these men mentioned
in the Jewish Scripture were also gods.
In fact, the word in Hebrew in Isaiah 9:6 you read as "The mighty God"
is El-Gibbor - it is not in the definate article. If it were it would
be Ha-El Gibbor - The "Ha" prefix meaning the definate article.
The word "Gibbor" means strong in a fighting sense; the word normally
used in Hebrew for strong is "Hazuk". The son of Achaz, for whom
Isaiah 9:6 is about, was called "Hezekiah" - Mighty G-d.
In 9:7 it says that this child has peace without end. Not end in time
but in the boundaries of the land. Do you think this applied to Jesus?
Jesus on the contrary never claimed to bring peace, just the sword.
Les Brown
Able
>In 9:7 it says that this child has peace without end. Not end in time
>but in the boundaries of the land. Do you think this applied to Jesus?
>Jesus on the contrary never claimed to bring peace, just the sword.
Hi Les,
That is a very narrow reading of what Jesus came for.
He did not come "just to bring the sword".
Do you want to modify that?
He certainly did come to bring peace, and also claimed to do so.
Able
>Les Brown
ResLight
"That was made" is described in the context: the world of mankind into which
Jesus came; the same world that that did not know him. (John 1:4,9,10)
"That was made" probably should be "What was made" and start a new sentence
and read similarly to the Bible versions I gave in my earlier post, which I
repost below:
All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came
into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the
light of all people. -- NRSV.
All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.
What came into existence in him was life, and the life was the light of
men. - The Bible in Basic English
Strong's numbers and a basic meaning for all words in these two verses:
3956 [All] 1223 [through] 846 [him] 1096 [be] 2532 [and] 5565 [without] 846
[him] 1096 [be] 3761 [not] 1520 [one - this word is rendered as *man* in the
KJV at Acts 2:6] 3739 [what,that] 1096 [be] 1722 [in] 846 [him] 2222 [life]
2258 [was] 2532 [and] 3588 [the] 2222 [life] 2258 [was] 3588 [the] 5457
[light] 444 [human]
This is taken from Goshen's KJV w/Strong's #s:
All [3956] things were [1096] made [1223] by [846] him; [2532] and [5565]
without [846] him [1096] was [3761] not any [1520] thing [1096] made [3739]
that was [1096] made. [1722] In [846] him [2258] was [2222] life; [2532] and
the [2222] life [2258] was the [5457] light of [444] men.
Please note also that there is actually no corresponding Greek words for
*things* or *thing* in this verse; thus it could be referring to humans
only, not to all things in the universe totally. "All things [represented by
the one word: panta] received being through [di] him, and without him not
one received being." Then John describes what he is referring to by "all
things": "What was made in him was life, and the life was the light of men."
Whatever, the same principle must be applied as in 1 Corinthians 15:27, that
it is evident that the Word was not included in "anything made" at this
point, but that he was created earlier than the beginning spoken of in John
1:1,2.
Ronald R. Day
Restoration Light
George Politis
> >"and without him was not anything made that was made".
> >This emphasises and clarifies the issue and identifies the scope of the
> >"all things", i.e., everything made. Not anything made, not a single
> >created speck, could have been made without him.
> >He therefore cannot be created.
>
> "That was made" is described in the context: the world of mankind into which
> Jesus came; the same world that that did not know him. (John 1:4,9,10)
>
> "That was made" probably should be "What was made" and start a new sentence
> and read similarly to the Bible versions I gave in my earlier post, which I
> repost below:
>
> All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came
> into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the
> light of all people. -- NRSV.
> Please note also that there is actually no corresponding Greek words for
> *things* or *thing* in this verse; thus it could be referring to humans
> only, not to all things in the universe totally. "All things [represented by
> the one word: panta] received being through [di] him, and without him not
> one received being." Then John describes what he is referring to by "all
> things": "What was made in him was life, and the life was the light of men."
Yes, I see. You have a good point. The punctuation could be changed.
I'll check the Greek, but from memory the NRSV looks like how it would
read.
This means that both Nicean and Arian interpretations are possible from
John 1:3 alone. I could also argue that John 1:1 is alluding to Genesis 1:1,
so that in fact all creation is in view, but while it lends weight to my
interpretation, it is not conclusive.
> Whatever, the same principle must be applied as in 1 Corinthians 15:27, that
> it is evident that the Word was not included in "anything made" at this
> point, but that he was created earlier than the beginning spoken of in John
> 1:1,2.
Well that's another problem. It does say "in the beginning was the Word".
How can you justify that this wasn't really the beginning?
ResLight
George Politis wrote in message <374E0434...@resaerch.canon.com.au>...
Reslight wrote:
>> Whatever, the same principle must be applied as in 1 Corinthians 15:27,
that
>> it is evident that the Word was not included in "anything made" at this
>> point, but that he was created earlier than the beginning spoken of in
John
>> 1:1,2.
>
>Well that's another problem. It does say "in the beginning was the Word".
>How can you justify that this wasn't really the beginning?
I don't try to justify that this wasn't really the beginning. It is "the
beginning" of something, but what? The context indicates that the beginning
spoken of here is the beginning of the world of mankind, which BTW, I
believe is also true of Genesis 1:1 (See Genesis 2:4; Exodus 20:11; Psalm
102:25; Isaiah 42:5; Mark 10:6; 13:19) The angels were already in existence
at the laying of the foundation of the earth. Jesus was also present at this
beginning. -- Job 38:4-7; Genesis 1:26; 3:22.
Ronald R. Day
Les Brown
Ok, then if he did, as you say, and did bring peace, then what was the
purpose of Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51?
But nowhere could I find any reference to Jesus saying that he brings
or causes peace - quite the contrary in fact. I mean, othersmight
claim that Jesus brought peace (Acts 10:36), but Jesus himself,
according to your books, claims just the opposite.
Now, I might be wrong, but I have no wish to modify what I have
written - certainly not until you can convince me otherwise and won't
be able to do that until you can explain Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51 in
such a way that it supports your POV.
From my Jewish vantage point, I can prove to you from an historical
perspective that Jesus did not bring peace, but indeed, it was the
sword.
Les Brown
Able
>p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote in aus.religion:
>
>>On Wed, 26 May 1999 13:05:19 GMT, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In 9:7 it says that this child has peace without end. Not end in time
>>>but in the boundaries of the land. Do you think this applied to Jesus?
>>>Jesus on the contrary never claimed to bring peace, just the sword.
>>
>>Hi Les,
>> That is a very narrow reading of what Jesus came for.
>>He did not come "just to bring the sword".
>>Do you want to modify that?
>>He certainly did come to bring peace, and also claimed to do so.
>>
>Ok, then if he did, as you say, and did bring peace, then what was the
>purpose of Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51?
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not
to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against
her mother in law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household.
First of all Les. Jesus was telling his twelve disciples here to go
and preach to the lost sheep of Israel. Not to Gentiles and not to
Samaritans.
Their miracle-working ministry was to attest to the legitimate claim
of Jesus to be the Messiah.
The "sword" here is the word of God.
Look not for peace, but a sword, Christ came to give the sword of the
word. It was a controversial issue, all religious isues are.
Children shall rise up against their parents is a summary statement of
Micah 7:6 (cf. Mk 13:12). For my name’s sake (i.e., because you belong
to Me). They would endure great persecution because of their
identification with Jesus Christ.
>But nowhere could I find any reference to Jesus saying that he brings
>or causes peace - quite the contrary in fact. I mean, othersmight
>claim that Jesus brought peace (Acts 10:36), but Jesus himself,
>according to your books, claims just the opposite.
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed
me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering
of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Have you read the sermon on the Mount Les?
Mat 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the
children of God.
>Now, I might be wrong, but I have no wish to modify what I have
>written - certainly not until you can convince me otherwise and won't
>be able to do that until you can explain Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51 in
>such a way that it supports your POV.
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell
you, Nay; but rather division:
The effect of the preaching of the gospel will be division. The
gospel and its proper application unites men to one another, if all
men received it, this would be its effect ; but there are multitudes
that not only will not receive it, but oppose it.
It establishes not the cause OF division but the reason FOR division.
Therefore the disciples of Christ were not promised peace upon
earth, for they were sent forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.
Nothing has changed.
>From my Jewish vantage point, I can prove to you from an historical
>perspective that Jesus did not bring peace, but indeed, it was the
>sword.
Being the word of God.
Able
>Les Brown
dke...@integrityonline4.com
You posted:
>>
>><snip>
>>> > Jesus is God because John 1:1-13 says so. The Jews attempted to stone Him
>>> >because they understood Him to be claiming to be god. They were eyewitnesses
>>> >to His teaching to boot , John 5:18, 10:31,33 Anyone who understands the
>>> >nature of deity will defend that to be equal with God is impossible for any
>>> >creature. To have or possess any deity is also impossible for a creature.
>>>
>>> He holds all the rightful power of God yes, but he isn't the Almighty
>>> God himself, he is only the mighty God as mentioned in Isaiah
>>
>>Oops, S, you've got too many gods! You count 1.) an "Almighty God",
>
>Yes, that is Our Father in Heaven. The creator of all things, seen
>and unseen.
WHO is the creator of all things? Look at what John Wrote:
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him
nothing came into being that has come into being.
JESUS created all things. EVERYTHING that was created!
(BTW, that shows that Jesus was NOT a created thing. . .He couldn't
have created Himself without existing before creation to do so. JW's
don't understand that one. . .)
>
>> and
>>2.) an only "mighty God".
>
>Yes I know, its surprising how the Bible mentions 2 then isn't it :-))
>
>> Would it surprise you to know that the Bible
>>knows of only One God?
>
>Actually, had you read the Bible, you would know that it mentions more
>than one, it mentions quite a few actually. Even in the NC the Bible
>tells us that their are many gods, here look for yourself :-)
>
>1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or
>in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
That ARE CALLED gods. Money is a god (albeit a FALSE god).
Power is a god (another false god).
Some men like the Maharaj Ji call themselves and are called god (and
they are false gods too).
From time to time, Christians REPRESENT God, and may SEEM AS gods to
the ones observing them, but they are false gods too. You may not
worship us.
Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written,
'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM
ONLY."'
The word "worship" in this passage is "proskuneo," which means
literally to fall down before.
Jesus accepts proskuneo over and over again in the Bible. Because He
IS God.
You and I cannot do so. It would be blasphemy.
<snip>
>
>HOLD UP THERE LASSY, Stop putting words in Jesus/The Christ's mouth,
>he NEVER EVER claimed to be God, the catholic church claimed he was
>God.
Not so at all.
John 8:54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing;
it is My
Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God';
55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say
that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him
and
keep His word.
56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and
was glad."
57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and
have You seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham
was born, I am."
59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid
Himself and went out of the temple.
Jesus claimed the Greek rendering of the Tetragrammaton, THE PERSONAL
NAME OF ALMIGHTY GOD.
The Jews saw that clearly and picked up stones to stone Him, which
would be the correct thing for them to do if He were blaspheming.
Jesus didn't rebuke them. He just got out of there.
>As to the anti-trinitarian belief, its not hard to accept
>really, its the Truth, then again the Truth is hard for most isn't it.
Truth is this:
Jesus is God. The Bible says so.
The Father is God. The Bible says so.
The Holy Spirit is God. The Bible says so.
And the Three are ONE GOD, since the Bible says there is only one God.
One TRUE GOD.
Many FALSE GODS.
NO OTHER KINDS GIVEN OR ALLOWED TO EXIST.
JW's don't understand that.
But they follow a corporation calling itself a "prophet."
in Christ Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the JW one),
dennis
dke...@integrityonline4.com
You posted:
>
>>And a simple translation of the words without taking into account the
>>differing syntax of the languages is NOT a valid way to do a proper
>>translation.
>
>Your right, but changing what the original greek says simply to
>fulfill a false belief like the trinity is wrong also isn't it??
>
What about changing the original Greek to "stick in" the word
"Jehovah" into the New Testament over and over again to fulfill your
religion's false belief, when Jehovah doesn't occur in the New
Testament Greek even one single time?????? Like the New World
Translation (the one that only the JW's accept)????
Dishonest, isn't it?
PLUS the fact that "Jehovah" is not a correct rendering of God's Name
anyway. The Hebrew language doesn't even have the letters for it!!
The CORRECT NAME is "Yahweh," and even the Watchtower organization has
acknowledged that in recent years, but it still publishes the name
"Jehovah" anyway, KNOWING IT IS WRONG!!!
Dishonest? It SURE IS!!!
in Christ Jesus, (the REAL ONE, not the JW one),
dennis
Rowland Croucher
Les Brown wrote:
>
> p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote in aus.religion:
>
> >On Wed, 26 May 1999 13:05:19 GMT, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In 9:7 it says that this child has peace without end. Not end in time
> >>but in the boundaries of the land. Do you think this applied to Jesus?
> >>Jesus on the contrary never claimed to bring peace, just the sword.
> >
> >Hi Les,
> > That is a very narrow reading of what Jesus came for.
> >He did not come "just to bring the sword".
> >Do you want to modify that?
> >He certainly did come to bring peace, and also claimed to do so.
> >
> Ok, then if he did, as you say, and did bring peace, then what was the
> purpose of Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51?
>
> But nowhere could I find any reference to Jesus saying that he brings
> or causes peace - quite the contrary in fact. I mean, othersmight
> claim that Jesus brought peace (Acts 10:36), but Jesus himself,
> according to your books, claims just the opposite.
Les: what do you make of Lk 1:79, 2:14, John 14:27 for starters?
>
> Now, I might be wrong, but I have no wish to modify what I have
> written - certainly not until you can convince me otherwise and won't
> be able to do that until you can explain Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51 in
> such a way that it supports your POV.
>
> From my Jewish vantage point, I can prove to you from an historical
> perspective that Jesus did not bring peace, but indeed, it was the
> sword.
I appreciate your perspective: as a follower of the peaceful Jesus I
would have to say those who practise hate or war against others -
whether Jews, Kosovars or whoever - in the name of are not following the
Jesus I follow...
>
> Les Brown
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher (rowl...@mira.net)
JOHN MARK MINISTRIES - resources for pastors/leaders
(Bookroom, library, and worldwide F.W.BOREHAM Trading Post)
WEBSITE (2200+ articles, 1000+ links) - http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm
LIST: email: clergy-...@pastornet.net.au (Subject-line: Subscribe)
Able
<rowl...@mira.net> wrote:
>
>
>Les Brown wrote:
>>
>> p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote in aus.religion:
>>
>> >On Wed, 26 May 1999 13:05:19 GMT, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>In 9:7 it says that this child has peace without end. Not end in time
>> >>but in the boundaries of the land. Do you think this applied to Jesus?
>> >>Jesus on the contrary never claimed to bring peace, just the sword.
>> >
>> >Hi Les,
>> > That is a very narrow reading of what Jesus came for.
>> >He did not come "just to bring the sword".
>> >Do you want to modify that?
>> >He certainly did come to bring peace, and also claimed to do so.
>> >
>> Ok, then if he did, as you say, and did bring peace, then what was the
>> purpose of Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51?
>>
>> But nowhere could I find any reference to Jesus saying that he brings
>> or causes peace - quite the contrary in fact. I mean, othersmight
>> claim that Jesus brought peace (Acts 10:36), but Jesus himself,
>> according to your books, claims just the opposite.
>
>Les: what do you make of Lk 1:79, 2:14, John 14:27 for starters?
Two are from his book for a start Rowland.
He was looking for the words of Jesus himself I perceive.
The last one is OK, but he is not talking " peace in the sense the
world would give".
Jhn 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the
world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither
let it be afraid.
Able
Les Brown
>> But nowhere could I find any reference to Jesus saying that he brings
>> or causes peace - quite the contrary in fact. I mean, othersmight
>> claim that Jesus brought peace (Acts 10:36), but Jesus himself,
>> according to your books, claims just the opposite.
>
>Les: what do you make of Lk 1:79, 2:14, John 14:27 for starters?
>>
LUK 1:79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow
of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
Who is speaking here in Luke? It is John's father Zacharias who was
prophecying. Whom was he talking about? His son, John, not Jesus.
Either that or he thought his son John was the messiah. And he got the
prophecy wrong too, the darkest time in makind's history followed the
conversion of most of Europe to Christianity. Far from giving light,
he extinguished it.
JOH 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as
the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled,
neither let it be afraid.
Jesus here is speaking to his disciples. Judas in 14:23 makes it clear
that. in context, Jesus is manifesting himself to his disciples, hence
he leaves them in peace which is a parting gesture - shalom means
exactly the same thing - he does not bring it to the world, but leaves
it for his disciples only.
Peace existed before Jesus, he never brought to the world what it
already had.
Perhaps this is what Ezekiel had in mind:
EZE 13:10 Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying,
Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo,
others daubed it with untempered morter:
Jesus never brought peace, a sword yes as millions of my brethren in
the past forced to accept either it or the cross. Come to think of it,
doesn't the cross look a lot like a sword?
>I appreciate your perspective: as a follower of the peaceful Jesus I
>would have to say those who practise hate or war against others -
>whether Jews, Kosovars or whoever - in the name of are not following the
>Jesus I follow...
>>
The Jesus you follow did not come to give peace. Back in the early
days of Christianity and the Jerusalem Church when Jews formed the
core of what was a Jewish messianic cult, he indeed came with the
sword. Why? Because the idea was to free the Jews of Roman rule,
that's why John's father, Zacharias, was so happy;
LUK 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of
the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear.
Jesus, bringing the sword, would remove the dreadful Romans from the
land. Does it not make more sense since Jesus came to the Jews first
and foremost to remove the Romans?
Les Brown
Les Brown
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 13:40:03 GMT, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) wrote:
>
>>p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote in aus.religion:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 May 1999 13:05:19 GMT, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In 9:7 it says that this child has peace without end. Not end in time
>>>>but in the boundaries of the land. Do you think this applied to Jesus?
>>>>Jesus on the contrary never claimed to bring peace, just the sword.
>>>
>>>Hi Les,
>>> That is a very narrow reading of what Jesus came for.
>>>He did not come "just to bring the sword".
>>>Do you want to modify that?
>>>He certainly did come to bring peace, and also claimed to do so.
>>>
>>Ok, then if he did, as you say, and did bring peace, then what was the
>>purpose of Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51?
>
>Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not
>to send peace, but a sword.
>
>Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
>and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against
>her mother in law.
>
>Mat 10:36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household.
>
>First of all Les. Jesus was telling his twelve disciples here to go
>and preach to the lost sheep of Israel. Not to Gentiles and not to
>Samaritans.
>Their miracle-working ministry was to attest to the legitimate claim
>of Jesus to be the Messiah.
>
>The "sword" here is the word of God.
Ok, so whenever the we find the word "sword" in the Christian Bible,
it really means "peace". Is this due to some translational thing from
Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Can you give some proof from
scripture that peace means sword? If you can't then sword could mean
cream puffs or any other word you like, otherwise the plain meaning
stands.
> Look not for peace, but a sword, Christ came to give the sword of the
>word. It was a controversial issue, all religious isues are.
If a word is a sword, then what is a mistranslated word - is it still
a sword?
>Children shall rise up against their parents is a summary statement of
>Micah 7:6 (cf. Mk 13:12). For my name’s sake (i.e., because you belong
>to Me). They would endure great persecution because of their
>identification with Jesus Christ.
>
Micah 7:6 is in a different context. Micah is talking about the
treachery of his generation. Read Micah 7:2-6. It has nothing to do
with someone arising and causing tension between children and parents.
>>But nowhere could I find any reference to Jesus saying that he brings
>>or causes peace - quite the contrary in fact. I mean, othersmight
>>claim that Jesus brought peace (Acts 10:36), but Jesus himself,
>>according to your books, claims just the opposite.
>
>Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed
>me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
>brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering
>of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
>
Yes, so where is peace mentioned here?
> Have you read the sermon on the Mount Les?
>Mat 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the
>children of God.
Yes, I read that, but nowhere does Jesus himself say that he brings
peace as you claim
>
>
>>Now, I might be wrong, but I have no wish to modify what I have
>>written - certainly not until you can convince me otherwise and won't
>>be able to do that until you can explain Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51 in
>>such a way that it supports your POV.
>
>Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell
>you, Nay; but rather division:
>
>The effect of the preaching of the gospel will be division. The
>gospel and its proper application unites men to one another, if all
>men received it, this would be its effect ; but there are multitudes
>that not only will not receive it, but oppose it.
>
>It establishes not the cause OF division but the reason FOR division.
>
And no reason for peace either. Proof positive that Jesus did not
bring peace.
>
> Therefore the disciples of Christ were not promised peace upon
>earth, for they were sent forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.
>Nothing has changed.
>
Yes, nothing has changed which again proves that Jesus was not the
messiah. Does it not say:
ISA 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Which is a post-messianic prophecy, yet you agree with me that Jesus
did not bring it about.
>>From my Jewish vantage point, I can prove to you from an historical
>>perspective that Jesus did not bring peace, but indeed, it was the
>>sword.
>
> Being the word of God.
No, Jesus - or more than likely, some 4th century redactor who altered
what ever tales there were to suit Christian political ambitions
post-Council of Nicea.
Les Brown
Able
snip>
>>First of all Les. Jesus was telling his twelve disciples here to go
>>and preach to the lost sheep of Israel. Not to Gentiles and not to
>>Samaritans.
>>Their miracle-working ministry was to attest to the legitimate claim
>>of Jesus to be the Messiah.
>>
>>The "sword" here is the word of God.
>
>Ok, so whenever the we find the word "sword" in the Christian Bible,
>it really means "peace".
No, that it can mean the word of God. That is my contention.
You have set up a straw man argument.
Les. Have you heard of allegory?
The Old Testament is full of it.
>Is this due to some translational thing from
>Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? Can you give some proof from
>scripture that peace means sword? If you can't then sword could mean
>cream puffs or any other word you like, otherwise the plain meaning
>stands.
Yes I can Les. Very directly , I hope you absorb it well.
Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than
any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the
Spirit, which is the word of God:
>> Look not for peace, but a sword, Christ came to give the sword of the
>>word. It was a controversial issue, all religious isues are.
>
>If a word is a sword, then what is a mistranslated word - is it still
>a sword?
If ever you want to know if it is allegorical, you only have to ask
Les. BTW you are not in your usual good mood. Have you been watching
Friday night football or something?:-)
>>Children shall rise up against their parents is a summary statement of
>>Micah 7:6 (cf. Mk 13:12). For my name’s sake (i.e., because you belong
>>to Me). They would endure great persecution because of their
>>identification with Jesus Christ.
>>
>Micah 7:6 is in a different context. Micah is talking about the
>treachery of his generation. Read Micah 7:2-6. It has nothing to do
>with someone arising and causing tension between children and parents.
Mic 7:6 For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up
against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a
man's enemies [are] the men of his own house.
>>>But nowhere could I find any reference to Jesus saying that he brings
>>>or causes peace - quite the contrary in fact. I mean, othersmight
>>>claim that Jesus brought peace (Acts 10:36), but Jesus himself,
>>>according to your books, claims just the opposite.
>>
>>Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed
>>me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
>>brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering
>>of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
>>
>Yes, so where is peace mentioned here?
Where is it not?
>> Have you read the sermon on the Mount Les?
>>Mat 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the
>>children of God.
>
>Yes, I read that, but nowhere does Jesus himself say that he brings
>peace as you claim
Jesus advocates peace here Les. It is beyond question.
He is talking about the peace of God, not world peace.
From the Aramaic Khaboris Peshitta translated into English.
A heavenly attitude is theirs, those serving the peace of God; they
will be called the children of God.
>>
>>
>>>Now, I might be wrong, but I have no wish to modify what I have
>>>written - certainly not until you can convince me otherwise and won't
>>>be able to do that until you can explain Mat 10:34 and Luke 12:51 in
>>>such a way that it supports your POV.
>>
>>Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell
>>you, Nay; but rather division:
>>
>>The effect of the preaching of the gospel will be division. The
>>gospel and its proper application unites men to one another, if all
>>men received it, this would be its effect ; but there are multitudes
>>that not only will not receive it, but oppose it.
>>
>>It establishes not the cause OF division but the reason FOR division.
>>
>And no reason for peace either. Proof positive that Jesus did not
>bring peace.
What do you mean by peace Les.?
We are perhaps at cross purposes here.
>>
>> Therefore the disciples of Christ were not promised peace upon
>>earth, for they were sent forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.
>>Nothing has changed.
>>
>Yes, nothing has changed which again proves that Jesus was not the
>messiah. Does it not say:
>ISA 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
>shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
>fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
>Which is a post-messianic prophecy, yet you agree with me that Jesus
>did not bring it about.
It is yet to happen.
>>>From my Jewish vantage point, I can prove to you from an historical
>>>perspective that Jesus did not bring peace, but indeed, it was the
>>>sword.
>>
>> Being the word of God.
>
>No, Jesus - or more than likely, some 4th century redactor who altered
>what ever tales there were to suit Christian political ambitions
>post-Council of Nicea.
The Aramaic Khaboris Peshitta has never been near the Council of
Nicea.
I think I might change my tag.
Cheers
Modrable.:-)
>Les Brown
st_ath...@my-deja.com
> Les. Have you heard of allegory?
I think you need to teach this message to your mate Graeme, who seems to not
have heard of 'allegory'.
> The Old Testament is full of it.
Not according to Graeme its not!
Peace.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
JATT
and if someone does, then he knows the trinity.
Remember God is Spirit and not a Ghost to frighten people.
--
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar, M.Sc.
A Jatt of the United Greater Panjab,
Mussallmaan of Pir Nanak Shah,
Gnostics are the living christs (satgurus) and NOT Christians, of Living
Allah (Spirit),
This Dark Age is the Age of Al-Islaam of heart and NOT of any Book.
For articles on sister Christian and Sikh communities, visit:-
http://www.nijjhar.freeserve.co.uk/gnostic.htm
http://www.nijjhar.freeserve.co.uk/sikhism.htm
<dke...@integrityonline4.com> wrote in message
news:3751d23d...@News.integrityonline4.com...
ResLight
JATT wrote in message <7jdq95$9pl$6...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Most of you do not know the difference between holy spirit and holy ghost
>and if someone does, then he knows the trinity.
In the KJV NT the phrases "holy spirit" and "holy ghost" are both translated
from the exact same Greek words. Thus any difference is in that which man
has imagined.
Able
>
>
>> Les. Have you heard of allegory?
>
>I think you need to teach this message to your mate Graeme, who seems to not
>have heard of 'allegory'.
I am sure he has Greg. What Graeme posted was on allegorical
interpretation. I don't think you gave him the occassion to elaborate
on his own thoughts on then matter.
Please do not make every oportunity to post, an opportunity to
attack Graeme. It reduces you and the Coptic Church you
represent.(IMHO).
>> The Old Testament is full of it.
>
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Dear Able,
> Please do not make every oportunity to post, an opportunity to
>attack Graeme. It reduces you and the Coptic Church you
>represent.(IMHO).
I shall take your advice under consideration.
Peace.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He,who has neither the repentance of the Tax Collector, nor the good deeds of the Pharisee.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all,
and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
hernando
The holy ghost on the other hand is a spirit and does not have a body.
Thats not to say one day he won't 'tho!
JATT
but it is obtained through revelations. So, is the difference between the
two understood through common sense or spirit.
People of the Books are dead people who bury their dead selves in letters.
Gospel is for the living in common sense.
--
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar, M.Sc.
A Jatt of the United Greater Panjab,
Mussallmaan of Pir Nanak Shah,
Gnostics are the living christs (satgurus) and NOT Christians, of Living
Allah (Spirit),
This Dark Age is the Age of Al-Islaam of heart and NOT of any Book.
For articles on sister Christian and Sikh communities, visit:-
http://www.nijjhar.freeserve.co.uk/gnostic.htm
http://www.nijjhar.freeserve.co.uk/sikhism.htm
ResLight <resl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7jens9$p6d$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Dear Hernando, Greetings.
The only 'body' that God has is the one that Jesus Christ our Lord
became when He was Incarnated into the womb of the Ever-Virgin St
Mary.
Further, whilst the Holy Spirit has not incarnated, He in fact does
have a Body on earth-The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church, here
the Spirit may be seen working in and through.
Apart from that do not hold your breath waiting for the Incarnation of
the Holy Spirit.
--
Mike Platt
hernando <pet...@mail.smartchat.net.au> wrote in article
<375DED9D...@mail.smartchat.net.au>...
> God is a spirit yes but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a body.
> The holy ghost on the other hand is a spirit and does not have a body.
> Thats not to say one day he won't 'tho!
>
>
>
Clare Key clara...@webmail.co.za
Hohohoho!! That's very funny, thanks but my father firmly believes in the
Holy Trinity I'm sure his religion called the Holy Trinity and I tried
reasoning with him but to no avail and my sister took up the battle too.
She's older than me about 27 years old with 1 daughter and 2 girl twins and
her husband. I'm the only JW in my family so I think it's wierd but a bit
funny too because we JW only have the truth and I'm so glad that i got to
know the truth, cheers gotta go and read the rest of the messages.