Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[katiemygirl]

yet again you prove my point there is no trinity . thank you

Explain please.

Do you think it is acceptable to insert the word SON into Acts 20:28 when it does not appear in a single Greek manuscript? Are you okay with this? Adding words which are not there?

If you have time, give some thought to Zechariah 12:10.
Who is the speaker?
Who is ME ?

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

You might want to cross reference with John 19:37

And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

 

[Kolibri]

Explain please.

Do you think it is acceptable to insert the word SON into Acts 20:28 when it does not appear in a single Greek manuscript? Are you okay with this? Adding words which are not there?

If you have time, give some thought to Zechariah 12:10.
Who is the speaker?
Who is ME ?

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

You might want to cross reference with John 19:37

And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Or cross-reference Zech 12:10 with Mt 25:40

"In reply the King will say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." Empathy.

or Zech 2:8

"For this is what Jehovah of armies says, who after being glorified (Lit., "after glory.") has sent me to the nations that were plundering you: 'Whoever touches you touches the pupil of my eye.' (or "touches my eyeball.") - Again, Empathy.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Another point. The trinity idea forever limits God to three beings but the Bible says believers can become adopted children of God so the God family will be more than three beings. Members of the God family will be spirit beings, not flesh and blood. Since the father and son and "holy" then the members of the God family are "holy" spirits. There is not a separate "being" that is the holy spirit. It is the spirit of the God family that is holy.

 

[Unification]

Over to which the "Holy Ghost" hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The Holy Ghost is the one who purchased with his own blood. The Christ/Messiah is the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Not a separate 3rd individual.

Nurture your body.

 

[cataway]

Explain please.

Do you think it is acceptable to insert the word SON into Acts 20:28 when it does not appear in a single Greek manuscript? Are you okay with this? Adding words which are not there?

If you have time, give some thought to Zechariah 12:10.
Who is the speaker?
Who is ME ?

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

You might want to cross reference with John 19:37

And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

your here tiring to support a false doctrine with scripture that does not work............. and your surprised that many of us know better.

 

[Wharton]

Can I suggest that you do the same as you just made a personal attack on me....for goodness sake, lighten up. Everything I say is not a personal attack on you. Seriously.

I asked you a direct question. "Are you trying to squeeze God into your own belief system?" because you seem to be ignoring the plain scriptural evidence put before you.

If John wrote..."No man has ever seen God"......by saying that he has, you are contradicting an apostle of Jesus Christ. Is John telling us lies? How am I being being smug or snarky by asking that question? Is John telling the truth here or is it you?

18 No one has ever seen God but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Your NWT translation needs to be rewritten to conform to your doctrine.

"No man has seen God at any time;+ the only-begotten god+ who is at the Father’s side*+ is the one who has explained Him.+"

The only-begotten god?

Begotten is not created. If you're begetting, it would be of the same substance/essence. You don't beget a different/inferior being. Your NWT is making Jesus of the same substance/essence as the father. And that's a JW no-no.

You need to have the governing body change that to: the only-created god.

It won't be the first time they needed to correct a doctrinal boo-boo in the NWT.

 

[JayJayDee]

18 No one has ever seen God but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

That is a very biased rendering.

John 1:18..."No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

John 1:18..."No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (Douay-Rheims)

John 1:18...."No one has ever seen God.The One and Only Son—the One who is at the Father’s side—He has revealed Him." (Holman)

John 1:18..."No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared him." (Darby)

John 1:18..."God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare." (Young's Literal Translation)

Trinitarian bias alters the way some translations render that verse....some more biased than others.

This is John 1:18 from the Interlinear....." θεὸν God οὐδεὶς no one ἑώρακεν has seen πώποτε· at any time; μονογενὴς only-begotten θεὸς god ὁ the (one) ὢν being εἰς into τὸν the κόλπον bosom τοῦ of the πατρὸς Father ἐκεῖνος that (one).

In the Greek it calls the Word, "the only begotten god" which makes trinitarians uncomfortable, (Almighty God cannot be begotten) so they render "god" as "Son".

That being the case, then John 1:1 should read..."And the Word was with God and the Word was the son".

Talk about misleading translations!

Phillips has a nice rendering of the whole passage.....

John 1:14-18..."So the word of God became a human being and lived among us. We saw his splendour the splendour as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. And it was about him that John stood up and testified, exclaiming: “Here is the one I was speaking about when I said that although he would come after me he would always be in front of me; for he existed before I was born!” Indeed, every one of us has shared in his riches—there is a grace in our lives because of his grace. For while the Law was given by Moses, love and truth came through Jesus Christ. It is true that no one has ever seen God at any time. Yet the divine and only Son, who lives in the closest intimacy with the Father, has made him known."

This is how the passage should be rendered without bias. It acknowledges the son as "divine" and describes "the bosom" as "close intimacy with the Father". Both are correct.

 

[katiemygirl]

your here tiring to support a false doctrine with scripture that does not work............. and your surprised that many of us know better.

I'm surprised that you couldn't answer two very simple questions. Instead you redirect away from the topic of conversation.This is a typical, classic ploy used by JW's to avoid the obvious. I see it all the time.

 

[Wharton]

That is a very biased rendering.

John 1:18..."No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

John 1:18..."No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (Douay-Rheims)

John 1:18...."No one has ever seen God.The One and Only Son—the One who is at the Father’s side—He has revealed Him." (Holman)

John 1:18..."No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared him." (Darby)

John 1:18..."God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare." (Young's Literal Translation)

Trinitarian bias alters the way some translations render that verse....some more biased than others.

This is John 1:18 from the Interlinear....." θεὸν God οὐδεὶς no one ἑώρακεν has seen πώποτε· at any time; μονογενὴς only-begotten θεὸς god ὁ the (one) ὢν being εἰς into τὸν the κόλπον bosom τοῦ of the πατρὸς Father ἐκεῖνος that (one).

In the Greek it calls the Word, "the only begotten god" which makes trinitarians uncomfortable, (Almighty God cannot be begotten) so they render "god" as "Son".

That being the case, then John 1:1 should read..."And the Word was with God and the Word was the son".

Talk about misleading translations!

Phillips has a nice rendering of the whole passage.....

John 1:14-18..."So the word of God became a human being and lived among us. We saw his splendour the splendour as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. And it was about him that John stood up and testified, exclaiming: “Here is the one I was speaking about when I said that although he would come after me he would always be in front of me; for he existed before I was born!” Indeed, every one of us has shared in his riches—there is a grace in our lives because of his grace. For while the Law was given by Moses, love and truth came through Jesus Christ. It is true that no one has ever seen God at any time. Yet the divine and only Son, who lives in the closest intimacy with the Father, has made him known."

This is how the passage should be rendered without bias. It acknowledges the son as "divine" and describes "the bosom" as "close intimacy with the Father". Both are correct.

It's nice how you totally ignored my comments on the NWT. Your NWT proves there are two persons of equal substance/essence in the Godhead. You don't beget an inferior being/creature. You beget an equal.

As I stated, you need to inform the GB that they need to remove 'begotten' and replace it with 'created' so that your doctrine is sound. They had no problem with removing worship and replacing it with obeisance and replacing grace with undeserved kindness in reference to Jesus.

So adding 'created' should be no problem. It's that 'light shining brighter' thingee.

 

[cataway]

I'm surprised that you couldn't answer two very simple questions. Instead you redirect away from the topic of conversation.This is a typical, classic ploy used by JW's to avoid the obvious. I see it all the time.

I will encourage you to read JayJayDee's post #927

 

[Wharton]

I will encourage you to read JayJayDee's post #927

I would encourage you to read the NWT on the matter. It doesn't match JW doctrine.

 

[JM2C]

no


no

28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

"his own [Son]? Where is that in the bible?

 

[JM2C]

Your NWT translation needs to be rewritten to conform to your doctrine.

That’s all they’ve been doing ever since. They have to do something all the time 24x7 to keep their members in place. So, if they are not prophesying the end of the world they are altering the word of God.

 

[cataway]

"his own [Son]? Where is that in the bible?

its found in many places in the bible , here are a few .

17 For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him


10 For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.


. 9 God is faithful, by whom YOU were called into a sharing with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.


4 God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, that we, in turn, might receive the adoption as sons.

7 However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin

 

[katiemygirl]

Or cross-reference Zech 12:10 with Mt 25:40

"In reply the King will say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." Empathy.

or Zech 2:8

"For this is what Jehovah of armies says, who after being glorified (Lit., "after glory.") has sent me to the nations that were plundering you: 'Whoever touches you touches the pupil of my eye.' (or "touches my eyeball.") - Again, Empathy.

I will encourage you to read JayJayDee's post #927

I have that person on Ignore.

 

[cataway]

I have that person on Ignore.

then let e please help you with your loss.That is a very biased rendering.

John 1:18..."No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

John 1:18..."No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (Douay-Rheims)

John 1:18...."No one has ever seen God.The One and Only Son—the One who is at the Father’s side—He has revealed Him." (Holman)

John 1:18..."No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared him." (Darby)

John 1:18..."God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare." (Young's Literal Translation)

Trinitarian bias alters the way some translations render that verse....some more biased than others.

This is John 1:18 from the Interlinear....." θεὸν God οὐδεὶς no one ἑώρακεν has seen πώποτε· at any time; μονογενὴς only-begotten θεὸς god ὁ the (one) ὢν being εἰς into τὸν the κόλπον bosom τοῦ of the πατρὸς Father ἐκεῖνος that (one).

In the Greek it calls the Word, "the only begotten god" which makes trinitarians uncomfortable, (Almighty God cannot be begotten) so they render "god" as "Son".

That being the case, then John 1:1 should read..."And the Word was with God and the Word was the son".

Talk about misleading translations!

Phillips has a nice rendering of the whole passage.....

John 1:14-18..."So the word of God became a human being and lived among us. We saw his splendour the splendour as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. And it was about him that John stood up and testified, exclaiming: “Here is the one I was speaking about when I said that although he would come after me he would always be in front of me; for he existed before I was born!” Indeed, every one of us has shared in his riches—there is a grace in our lives because of his grace. For while the Law was given by Moses, love and truth came through Jesus Christ. It is true that no one has ever seen God at any time. Yet the divine and only Son, who lives in the closest intimacy with the Father, has made him known."

This is how the passage should be rendered without bias. It acknowledges the son as "divine" and describes "the bosom" as "close intimacy with the Father". Both are correct.

 

[JayJayDee]

It's nice how you totally ignored my comments on the NWT.

On the contrary, It was addressed it fully. It was shown to you from other translations how wrong you were. It was demonstrated how bias is used in translating and why the word "son" was substituted for "god" in that verse.

Your NWT proves there are two persons of equal substance/essence in the Godhead. You don't beget an inferior being/creature. You beget an equal.

Can you show me anywhere in scripture that says so? Where will I find "same substance" or "essence" in the Bible? I am sure you will find it in the words of men, but you will not find it in the word of God.

Christ was a divine being...that does not make him equal to the one that 'begat' him. There is only one Father....all life comes from him.

Jesus is described as "the firstborn of all creation". (Col 1:15, 16) "The beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3:12)

If we have a "firstborn" (monogenes) in any family (same word used in scripture for Jesus) then they did not come into being at the same time as their father. The Father alone is an eternal being.....he then created the life of his "firstborn"....was he divine? YES! Equal to his Father ? NEVER! Nor did he ever claim to be. Humans did that.

I did not once quote the NWT in my reply. Christendom's opinion of the NWT probably rivals our opinion of their disgustingly biased translations.

As I stated, you need to inform the GB that they need to remove 'begotten' and replace it with 'created' so that your doctrine is sound.

Feel free to dictate to our governing body any time. I'm sure they can't manage our united global brotherhood without your advice.

They had no problem with removing worship and replacing it with obeisance and replacing grace with undeserved kindness in reference to Jesus.

That could have something to do with deeper study into the meaning of the word "proskyneo", which can be used for both. Context dictates which and Jesus never once solicited worship. He said that his Father "alone" was to be worshipped in that sense.

"Undeserved kindness", I believe is a better rendering because "grace" has taken on a meaning in Christendom that the scriptures have never promoted. For some it is a licence to sin whilst taking God's forgiveness for granted. For many it removes the need for genuine repentance.

So adding 'created' should be no problem. It's that 'light shining brighter' thingee.

If there was no light to be shed as time went on, why does the scripture say so? (Prov 4:18, 19) Those in the dark haven't got a clue.

There is no light being shed at all in Christendom, who haven't changed their sad tune for centuries. Even after her doctrines have been proven to be man-made, she still clings to them and continues to promote the idea that God is backing her. Yet....Look at the fractured state of Christendom's churches and see the pathetic excuse for Christianity that God sees. Take a good look at the activities of those who purport to be spiritual leaders in today's world (pick a denomination) and understand why Jesus will say at the judgment..."I never knew you, get away from me you workers of lawlessness!" (Matt 7:21-23)

"By their fruits" Jesus said you would recognise his true disciples, as opposed to the "weeds" sown by the devil. Peace is the possession of true Christians. (2 Pet 3:11-14)

"Happy are the peacemakers" Jesus said...since when has Christendom ever been responsible for making peace? She is too busy supporting the political wars of this world....of which Jesus told his disciples to have "no part". I guess that makes Christendom a place of perpetual unhappiness. I was personally never happy there....that's why I left.

We are all responsible for where we are when the end comes. It's our choice to accept or reject the message.....and the judgment is permanent.

 

[Unification]

On the contrary, It was addressed it fully. It was shown to you from other translations how wrong you were. It was demonstrated how bias is used in translating and why the word "son" was substituted for "god" in that verse.


Can you show me anywhere in scripture that says so? Where will I find "same substance" or "essence" in the Bible? I am sure you will find it in the words of men, but you will not find it in the word of God.

You have used 3 different names, scripture, the Bible, and the Word of God. Can you please elaborate on why scripture, and the Bible are Jesus Christ?

Would it be considered Christiandom to call writing, letters, and a book, and exalt them over the true Word of God?

If I were to seek God, is the only place that I can find Him in a book?

Has the Lord ever spoken to you?


Christ was a divine being...that does not make him equal to the one that 'begat' him. There is only one Father....all life comes from him.

Jesus is described as "the firstborn of all creation". (Col 1:15, 16) "The beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3:12)

If we have a "firstborn" (monogenes) in any family (same word used in scripture for Jesus) then they did not come into being at the same time as their father. The Father alone is an eternal being.....he then created the life of his "firstborn"....was he divine? YES! Equal to his Father ? NEVER! Nor did he ever claim to be. Humans did that.

I did not once quote the NWT in my reply. Christendom's opinion of the NWT probably rivals our opinion of their disgustingly biased translations.


Feel free to dictate to our governing body any time. I'm sure they can't manage our united global brotherhood without your advice.


That could have something to do with deeper study into the meaning of the word "proskyneo", which can be used for both. Context dictates which and Jesus never once solicited worship. He said that his Father "alone" was to be worshipped in that sense.

"Undeserved kindness", I believe is a better rendering because "grace" has taken on a meaning in Christendom that the scriptures have never promoted. For some it is a licence to sin whilst taking God's forgiveness for granted. For many it removes the need for genuine repentance.


If there was no light to be shed as time went on, why does the scripture say so? (Prov 4:18, 19) Those in the dark haven't got a clue.

There is no light being shed at all in Christendom, who haven't changed their sad tune for centuries. Even after her doctrines have been proven to be man-made, she still clings to them and continues to promote the idea that God is backing her. Yet....Look at the fractured state of Christendom's churches and see the pathetic excuse for Christianity that God sees. Take a good look at the activities of those who purport to be spiritual leaders in today's world (pick a denomination) and understand why Jesus will say at the judgment..."I never knew you, get away from me you workers of lawlessness!" (Matt 7:21-23)

"By their fruits" Jesus said you would recognise his true disciples, as opposed to the "weeds" sown by the devil. Peace is the possession of true Christians. (2 Pet 3:11-14)

"Happy are the peacemakers" Jesus said...since when has Christendom ever been responsible for making peace? She is too busy supporting the political wars of this world....of which Jesus told his disciples to have "no part". I guess that makes Christendom a place of perpetual unhappiness. I was personally never happy there....that's why I left.

We are all responsible for where we are when the end comes. It's our choice to accept or reject the message.....and the judgment is permanent.

 

[Wharton]

On the contrary, It was addressed it fully. It was shown to you from other translations how wrong you were. It was demonstrated how bias is used in translating and why the word "son" was substituted for "god" in that verse.


Can you show me anywhere in scripture that says so? Where will I find "same substance" or "essence" in the Bible? I am sure you will find it in the words of men, but you will not find it in the word of God.

Christ was a divine being...that does not make him equal to the one that 'begat' him. There is only one Father....all life comes from him.

Jesus is described as "the firstborn of all creation". (Col 1:15, 16) "The beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3:12)

If we have a "firstborn" (monogenes) in any family (same word used in scripture for Jesus) then they did not come into being at the same time as their father. The Father alone is an eternal being.....he then created the life of his "firstborn"....was he divine? YES! Equal to his Father ? NEVER! Nor did he ever claim to be. Humans did that.

I did not once quote the NWT in my reply. Christendom's opinion of the NWT probably rivals our opinion of their disgustingly biased translations.


Feel free to dictate to our governing body any time. I'm sure they can't manage our united global brotherhood without your advice.


That could have something to do with deeper study into the meaning of the word "proskyneo", which can be used for both. Context dictates which and Jesus never once solicited worship. He said that his Father "alone" was to be worshipped in that sense.

"Undeserved kindness", I believe is a better rendering because "grace" has taken on a meaning in Christendom that the scriptures have never promoted. For some it is a licence to sin whilst taking God's forgiveness for granted. For many it removes the need for genuine repentance.


If there was no light to be shed as time went on, why does the scripture say so? (Prov 4:18, 19) Those in the dark haven't got a clue.

There is no light being shed at all in Christendom, who haven't changed their sad tune for centuries. Even after her doctrines have been proven to be man-made, she still clings to them and continues to promote the idea that God is backing her. Yet....Look at the fractured state of Christendom's churches and see the pathetic excuse for Christianity that God sees. Take a good look at the activities of those who purport to be spiritual leaders in today's world (pick a denomination) and understand why Jesus will say at the judgment..."I never knew you, get away from me you workers of lawlessness!" (Matt 7:21-23)

"By their fruits" Jesus said you would recognise his true disciples, as opposed to the "weeds" sown by the devil. Peace is the possession of true Christians. (2 Pet 3:11-14)

"Happy are the peacemakers" Jesus said...since when has Christendom ever been responsible for making peace? She is too busy supporting the political wars of this world....of which Jesus told his disciples to have "no part". I guess that makes Christendom a place of perpetual unhappiness. I was personally never happy there....that's why I left.

We are all responsible for where we are when the end comes. It's our choice to accept or reject the message.....and the judgment is permanent.

Still can't grasp the word beget. Oh well.

 

[Wharton]

"Happy are the peacemakers" Jesus said...since when has Christendom ever been responsible for making peace? She is too busy supporting the political wars of this world....of which Jesus told his disciples to have "no part". I guess that makes Christendom a place of perpetual unhappiness. I was personally never happy there....that's why I left.

How about your letter to Hitler?

Following is part of an English translation of the Letter to Hitler. "Dear Reichskanzler,
…
The Brooklyn headquarter of the Watchtower Society is pro German in an exemplary way and has been so for many years. For that reason, in 1918, the president of the Society and seven members of the board of directors were sentenced to 80 years in prison, because the president refused to use two of the magazines published in America under his direction for war propaganda against Germany. These two magazines, "The Watchtower" and "Bible Student" were the only magazines in America which refused to engage in anti-German propaganda and for that reason were prohibited and suppressed in America during the war.

In the very same manner, in course of the recent months the board of directors of our Society not only refused to engage in propaganda against Germany, but has even taken a position against it. The enclosed declaration underlines this fact and emphasizes that the people leading in such propaganda (Jewish businessmen and Catholics) also are the most rigorous persecutors of the work of our Society and its board of directors. This and other statements of the declaration are meant to repudiate the slanderous accusation, that Bible Researchers are supported by the Jews.

The conference of five thousand delegates also noted - as is expressed in the declaration - that the Bible Researchers of Germany are fighting for the very same high ethical goals and ideals which also the national government of the German Reich proclaimed respecting the relationship of humans to God, namely: honesty of the created being towards its creator.

The conference came to the conclusion that there are no contradictions when it comes to the relationship between the Bible Researchers of Germany to the national government of the German Reich. To the contrary, referring to the purely religious and unpolitical goals and efforts of the Bible Researchers, it can be said that these are in full agreement with the identical goals of the national government of the German Reich.

We are looking forward to your kind approval, which we hope to receive soon, and want to assure our highest respect to you, honorable Mr. Reichskanzler.

Yours faithfully,
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Magdeburg"