• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can someone explain the Trinity please...

Of course I'm stuck on the word test. It's not scriptural. And your organization prides itself on being scriptural.

Just show me in scripture that a test is required in front of elders to qualify for baptism?


READ THIS

"No Infant Baptism. In view of the fact that ‘hearing the word,’ ‘embracing the word heartily,’ and ‘repenting’ precede water baptism (Ac 2:14, 22, 38, 41) and that baptism requires the individual to make a solemn decision, it is apparent that one must at least be of age to hear, to believe, and to make this decision. An argument is made by some in favor of infant baptism. They refer to the instances where ‘households’ were baptized, such as the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas. (Ac 10:48; 11:14; 16:15, 32-34; 18:8; 1Co 1:16) They believe that this implies that small babies in those families were also baptized. But, in the case of Cornelius, those who were baptized were those who had heard the word and received the holy spirit, and they spoke in tongues and glorified God; these things could not apply to infants. (Ac 10:44-46) Lydia was “a worshiper of God, . . . and Jehovah opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things being spoken by Paul.” (Ac 16:14) The Philippian jailer had to “believe on the Lord Jesus,” and this implies that the others in his family also had to believe in order to be baptized. (Ac 16:31-34) “Crispus the presiding officer of the synagogue became a believer in the Lord, and so did all his household.” (Ac 18:8) All of this demonstrates that associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing, and glorifying God, things infants cannot do. At Samaria when they heard and believed “the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, they proceeded to be baptized.” Here the Scriptural record specifies that the ones baptized were, not infants, but “men and women.”—Ac 8:12.

The statement made by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians that children were “holy” by reason of a believing parent is no proof that infants were baptized; rather, it implies the opposite. Minor children too young to have the ability to make such a decision would come under a form of merit because of the believing parent, not because of any so-called sacramental baptism, imparting independent merit. If infants could properly be baptized, they would not need to have the merit of the believing parent extended to them.—1Co 7:14.

It is true that Jesus said: “Stop hindering [the young children] from coming to me, for the kingdom of the heavens belongs to suchlike ones.” (Mt 19:13-15; Mr 10:13-16) But they were not baptized. Jesus blessed them, and there is nothing to indicate that his laying his hands upon them was a religious ceremony. He further showed that the reason ‘the kingdom of God belongs to such’ was not because they were baptized but because they were teachable and trusting. Christians are commanded to be “babes as to badness,” yet “full-grown in powers of understanding.”—Mt 18:4; Lu 18:16, 17; 1Co 14:20.

The religious historian Augustus Neander wrote of the first-century Christians: “The practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. . . . That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus [c. 120/140-c. 200/203 C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by theApostles, 1864, p. 162."

Baptism — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 
Eeeyah. It's Paul speaking to a congregation, not Jesus.

And once again, your God is discriminatory as he doesn't treat his children equally. Not much of a God.
I was referring to the last supper.I confused my spelling.Sorry.My mistake.
 
What don't you understand? You can twist all you want by throwing in meaningless details on the life of Jesus but the truth is clear. You don't hold to the two most important beliefs of orthodox Christianity:that Jesus is God and that there is a Trinity.

Once again, if you can't hold to the two most basic beliefs of orthodox Christianity, your theology is more like a Muslim than a Christian. And that's a fact, Jack.

Use your head, you believe in Jehovah God. That doesn't make you an atheist, a Hindu, a Buddist, etc.

You are confused and lost my brother.You are a 62 year old man who still has not yet come to know the true word of God.It is not to late brother.Jesus is not God.There is no Trinity.It is obvious but just as the holy scriptures says," 2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


King James Bible
Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
Your memorial service would leave them confused and clueless. They'd probably get busted for partaking of the 'emblems.' LOL

Pretty much doubt that. There is no watchdog going around telling individuals you are not a party to the new covenant. The scriptures are plain. The people that are 'born again' will know who they are. The designation is something personal that comes from God himself. (Ro 8:15; Ga 4:6)
 

Wharton

Active Member
“The practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. . . . That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus [c. 140-203 C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, 1864, p. 162.

Seems to me much of the tradition came after the foretold apostasy that was already trying to destroy the Christian faith from with even in Paul's day. Once John was dead, Judizers and Greek philosophers changed much. Now you have centuries of tradition to fall back on as if it were fact. Did not change the fact that the Jewish religious leaders did exactly the same thing over the centuries between the days of Ezra till the 1st century. Seems like Satan used the same trick twice.
Why would Satan like tricking people into being initiated into the body of Christ and their infants raised as such members? Seems to me that he would like them unbaptized for as long as possible.

Anyway, when was a Jewish infant presented for circumcision to be a member of the community?

Although there is no strong scriptural evidence as to when a person may be baptized, you might want to consider:

Colossians 2:11-12New International Version (NIV)

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I just can't imagine adults being baptized into the body of Christ and having their children left out. So the parents would be Christians and the children would be considered heathens? Got me as to what they would be called.
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
Why would Satan like tricking people into being initiated into the body of Christ and their infants raised as such members? Seems to me that he would like them unbaptized for as long as possible.

Anyway, when was a Jewish infant presented for circumcision to be a member of the community?

Although there is no strong scriptural evidence as to when a person may be baptized, you might want to consider:

Colossians 2:11-12New International Version (NIV)

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I just can't imagine adults being baptized into the body of Christ and having their children left out. So the parents would be Christians and the children would be considered heathens? Got me as to what they would be called.
Scripture tells us alot about baptism. Nothing about infant or baby baptism. Knowledge is always first. Whether it is a young adult or old person. It is knowledge of God's Word first.
 
Only if they study via your false translation of the bible. Why don't you have the fortitude to study via the KJV which the JW's used before the NWT? Then come back and tell us what you've learned? See, when you flip flop from using one bible to the next, you make Jehovah into a God of confusion. The light shining brighter falsehood that you promote is just a cover up for error. Face it.

Oh I love using the KJV bible.I just used it on another comment I just replied back to you before this one coincidentally.Awesome! Here is what I learned from the KING JAMES BIBLE.

Exodus 6:3 King James Bible
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psalm 83:18 King James Bible
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2 King James Bible
Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4 King James Bible
Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH iseverlasting strength:

So we can clearly see that Jehovah is the Most High and the Almighty.Jehovah is God,not Jesus.

Why do you think the name Jehovah has been removed so many times from the holy scriptures? Because satan does not want people to know God's true name so they can't have a relationship with Him.

Have you not wondered why Jehovah's name appears in the 1611 KJV bible that everyone used in the past but now all of a sudden it is not in the new KJV bible.Think brother think!

LOOK!

Exodus 6:3 King James 2000 Bible
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name the LORD was I not known to them.

Psalm 83:18 King James 2000 Bible
That men may know that you, whose name alone is the LORD, are the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2 King James 2000 Bible
Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song; he also has become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4 King James 2000 Bible
Trust in the LORD forever: for in the LORD GOD is everlasting strength:

Wow! Can you see now brother? Why would they remove God's true name from the holy scriptures?
 

Wharton

Active Member
You are confused and lost my brother.You are a 62 year old man who still has not yet come to know the true word of God.It is not to late brother.Jesus is not God.There is no Trinity.It is obvious but just as the holy scriptures says," 2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


King James Bible
Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Still can't answer a simple question. Oh well

Jesus is not God ONLY according to your badly translated NWT.

I'm not playing those odds based on your past JW flip flops. Even your incorporation charter stated that you were to worship Jesus. You are the one that has been purposely confused by your organization. Sad but true.

Ponder this. If God is love, then it would be selfish to be one person. Who does he love? Himself? There has to be equal reciprocity. He can't love inferior beings as they are not equals. There has to be an equal person to love.
 

Wharton

Active Member
Scripture tells us alot about baptism. Nothing about infant or baby baptism. Knowledge is always first. Whether it is a young adult or old person. It is knowledge of God's Word first.
So we leave out the children of newly converted believers. They remain unclaimed baggage?
 
Of course I'm stuck on the word test. It's not scriptural. And your organization prides itself on being scriptural.

Just show me in scripture that a test is required in front of elders to qualify for baptism?

You keep bring up that things are not scriptural.Did you know that Paul and the other 1st century christians used to go door to door and house to house? This is in scripture.Who else does this? Do you?

Acts 20:20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house.

Acts 28:23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.

So here we have Paul going around from house to house preaching about God to all who will listen.Persuading them about Jesus.This sounds very familiar and scriptural too.
 
Still can't answer a simple question. Oh well

Jesus is not God ONLY according to your badly translated NWT.

I'm not playing those odds based on your past JW flip flops. Even your incorporation charter stated that you were to worship Jesus. You are the one that has been purposely confused by your organization. Sad but true.

Ponder this. If God is love, then it would be selfish to be one person. Who does he love? Himself? There has to be equal reciprocity. He can't love inferior beings as they are not equals. There has to be an equal person to love.

You do more and more damage to your religious rep on this forum by making opinionated statements like,"If God is love, then it would be selfish to be one person. Who does he love? Himself? There has to be equal reciprocity."

That was really bad brother.I need not say anymore because you have done it all by yourself.

James 3:8-10.
8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.…
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
I just can't imagine adults being baptized into the body of Christ and having their children left out. So the parents would be Christians and the children would be considered heathens? Got me as to what they would be called.

They would be called 'holy'. - till they reached an age of accountability. Especially so if they were God fearing and obeying their parents. (1 Cor 7:14; Eph 6:1-3)

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy." - 1 Corinthians 7:14)

"Children, be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous. 'Honor your father and your mother' is the first command with a promise: 'That it may go well with you and you many remain a long time on the earth.'" - Ephesians 6:1-3
 
They would be called 'holy'. - till they reached an age of accountability. Especially so if they were God fearing and obeying their parents. (1 Cor 7:14; Eph 6:1-3)

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy." - 1 Corinthians 7:14)

"Children, be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous. 'Honor your father and your mother' is the first command with a promise: 'That it may go well with you and you many remain a long time on the earth.'" - Ephesians 6:1-3
Pretty much doubt that. There is no watchdog going around telling individuals you are not a party to the new covenant. The scriptures are plain. The people that are 'born again' will know who they are. The designation is something personal that comes from God himself. (Ro 8:15; Ga 4:6)

My brother, who is a ministerial servant, once told me that a friend of his, who is a brother, once witnessed a person partaking of the emblems.That brother asked the person how is it they know that they are part of the 144,000.The lady replied to him, "the way you know you are a man is the way I know I am one." So this lady just knew and felt it in her heart.it was as natural as anything.I have only witnessed this once in my life.Back in 1984 I saw a woman partaking.I just remember staring at her and wondering about it.
 
So we leave out the children of newly converted believers. They remain unclaimed baggage?

You don't just throw a person in a car and tell them to to drive.You have to teach them how to drive first.Once they learn then they can drive on their own.
 
Stop tap dancing. Do you or do you not have a pre-qualification test prior to being issued a certificate allowing baptism?

Look at this video.The brother asked the people who are about to get baptized 2 questions in public about whether or not they fully understand what is about to take place.Once they say yes they all pray to God and commence.


JW-New JW's - YouTube by Bible Student posted Nov 11, 2014


Ps.The first 36 seconds says it all.
 

Wharton

Active Member
Oh I love using the KJV bible.I just used it on another comment I just replied back to you before this one coincidentally.Awesome! Here is what I learned from the KING JAMES BIBLE.

Exodus 6:3 King James Bible
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psalm 83:18 King James Bible
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2 King James Bible
Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4 King James Bible
Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH iseverlasting strength:

So we can clearly see that Jehovah is the Most High and the Almighty.Jehovah is God,not Jesus.

Why do you think the name Jehovah has been removed so many times from the holy scriptures? Because satan does not want people to know God's true name so they can't have a relationship with Him.

Have you not wondered why Jehovah's name appears in the 1611 KJV bible that everyone used in the past but now all of a sudden it is not in the new KJV bible.Think brother think!

LOOK!

Exodus 6:3 King James 2000 Bible
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name the LORD was I not known to them.

Psalm 83:18 King James 2000 Bible
That men may know that you, whose name alone is the LORD, are the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2 King James 2000 Bible
Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song; he also has become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4 King James 2000 Bible
Trust in the LORD forever: for in the LORD GOD is everlasting strength:

Wow! Can you see now brother? Why would they remove God's true name from the holy scriptures?
What I see is that no one knows what God's name is. Not even Orthodox Jews. So Jehovah means nothing as far as pronunciation and is totally incorrect. It's not God's true name. All we have is YVHV. Which has been replaced by the four letters LORD in scripture. Orthodox Jews, who should know what's up, don't call you Jehovah's Witnesses. They call you People of the Name. Maybe you should get up to speed.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
What I see is that no one knows what God's name is. Not even Orthodox Jews. So Jehovah means nothing as far as pronunciation and is totally incorrect. It's not God's true name. All we have is YVHV. Which has been replaced by the four letters LORD in scripture. Orthodox Jews, who should know what's up, don't call you Jehovah's Witnesses. They call you People of the Name. Maybe you should get up to speed.

And maybe I should insist on all Johns and Juans to be called Yehohanan...even though no one in either English or Spanish speaking communities would have any idea what I was talking about.:rolleyes:

Better yet, let's just call them all Mister or Senior, refusing to use their name because it does not conform to our standard.
 
Last edited:
Top