Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[JayJayDee]

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"

Did you ever do any further research into that letter or its motive....or did you just take it at a propagandists's face value?

It was easy to check even with Wiki....

"The Declaration of Facts was a widely distributed public statement issued by Jehovah's Witnesses during the period ofpersecution of the religion in Nazi Germany. The document, which asserted the religion's political neutrality, appealed for the right to publicly preach and claimed it was the victim of a misinformation campaign by other religions, was prepared byWatch Tower Society president Joseph F. Rutherford and released at a convention in Berlin on June 25, 1933. More than 2.1 million copies of the statement were distributed throughout Germany, with copies also mailed to senior government officials including German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.[1] Its distribution prompted a new wave of persecution against German Witnesses"

Please read the full article.... Declaration of Facts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JayJayDee]

It would be appreciated if you could use the quote boxes.

Either highlight the part you wish to respond to and click "reply" or place "quote" in square brackets before the portion of text and "/quote" in square brackets after it. This selects the portion of a post you wish to respond to.

It is not difficult and makes responses so much easier to address.

As you can see, your response came up as no response.

 

[JayJayDee]

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

No point cat, this person has me on ignore....some like to put their fingers in their ears...la la la.

I upset people with my "attacks" apparently. I must have a subconscious cashe of weapons hiding somewhere in my psyche.

 

[JayJayDee]

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

beget
bɪˈɡɛt/
verb
literary

(especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.

1. "they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen"
   synonyms: father, sire, engender, generate, spawn, create, give life to, bring into being, bring into the world, have;
   procreate, reproduce, breed.
   
   I think I know what "beget" means......but do you?

(Edit) If the same word is used for God 'begetting' his son and the terms "father" and "son" are what we understand in our own relationships, wouldn't God use other terminology so as not to confuse us? You are assuming it means something different, but the Bible doesn't say that.

 

[Kolibri]

No point cat, this person has me on ignore....some like to put their fingers in their ears...la la la.

I upset people with my "attacks" apparently. I must have a subconscious cashe of weapons hiding somewhere in my psyche.

Nah. It is just your Australian "straight talk." I chalk it up to a cultural difference. We Americans, in general, are not used to your historically criminal ways.
(referring to Australia having been a prison colony)

 

[JayJayDee]

Nah. It is just your Australian "straight talk." I chalk it up to a cultural difference. We Americans, in general, are not used to your historically criminal ways.
(referring to Australia having been a prison colony)

Yes, our criminal roots are hard to deny

Once a crim, always a crim.....must be genetic. Some guy named Adam had all these kids who all became criminals.....I think one of them was my Dad.....he must be to blame.

 

[katiemygirl]

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.

I appreciate your effort, but no matter how you cut it, any translation, which uses SON is incorrect. The Greek word for SON (huios) is not found in any extant manuscript.

"the only begotten god" is what the verse says in the Hebrew. I have no problem with that. I can't speak for the various translators and whether it makes them uncomfortable or not.

I don't know about you, but I see bias in many translations. Some would be better if they were completely destroyed. This is why each of us has to be willing to set our own biases aside and examine the Scriptures closely, looking at the original language as we go. It's important to not allow others to do our thinking for us. We must allow the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth. It's best to read the Bible and not mens' interpretation of the Bible. That's how I see it.

By the way, the word Son does not appear in John 1:1 in any Greek manuscript.

 

[Kolibri]

By the way, the word Son does not appear in John 1:1 in any Greek manuscript.

You are right, the argument was made not that it was there, but if the translators were to replace god with son at John 1:18, then they should have done also at John 1:1 for consistency. The point was that those specific translations were being inconsistent.

 

[lovemuffin]

I appreciate your effort, but no matter how you cut it, any translation, which uses SON is incorrect. The Greek word for SON (huios) is not found in any extant manuscript.

If you're referring to John 1:18, that is incorrect. If you check the textual apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (which actually renders it monogenes Theos, as do all the translations which use it, in case you are worried about bias), it cites a number of manuscripts which contain monogenes Huios. There are others that just say monogenes and omit either word. There are apparently more manuscripts that contain "son" than contain "god" in that verse, and from more diverse textual sources, but the oldest manuscripts (albeit all alexandrian in origin) which Nestle-Aland favors contain Theos.

The controversy about that passage is not about translation, but about which text to favor. And it's not even really a question of picking the "Trinitarian" side versus the other side. To the best of my knowledge, the most important Trinitarian fathers (Basil, Gregory Nazianzen) cited it as monogenes Huios, as did John Chrysostom in his commentary and others. Whereas the Arians preferred the Theos version. The eastern orthodox churches (not exactly a bastion of anti-trinitarianism) prefer the "only-begotten son" version.

Honestly I think as far as the argument about trinitarianism goes, establishing the text of this verse shouldn't really settle the matter either way.

 

[Kolibri]

There are apparently more manuscripts that contain "son" than contain "god" in that verse, and from more diverse textual sources, but the oldest manuscripts (albeit all alexandrian in origin) which Nestle-Aland favors contain Theos.

Thank you for that update. I had not actually double checked before agreeing with @katiemygirl on that point.

I quoted this earlier but there is a fine point on Greek grammer that can be illustrated if we actually examine the 4 verses cited.

On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ἴδιος [i′di·os] something should be said about the use of ὁ ἴδιος [ho i′di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11; 13:1, Ac 4:23; 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’”

New World Translation (2013 Revision)
English word for word translation based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text

"He came to his own home, but his own people did not accept him." - John 1:11
Into / the / own (things) / he came, / and / the / own (ones) / him / not / took alongside.

"Now because he knew before the festival of the Passover that his hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father, Jesus, having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end." - John 13:1
Before / but / the / festival / of the / passover / knowing / the / Jesus / that / came / of him / the / hour / in order that / he might transfer / out of / the / world / this / toward / the / Father / having loved / the / own / the (ones) / in / the / world / into / end / he loved / them.

"After being released, they went to their own people and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them." - Act 4:23
Having been release / but / they came / toward / the / own / and / they reported back / as many (things) as / toward / them / the / chief priests / and / the / older men / said.

"And he gave orders to the army officer that the man be kept under arrest but given some freedom, and that his people be allowed to attend to his needs." - Act 24:23
having ordered / to the / centurion / to be being observed / him / to be having / and / relaxation / and / no one / to be forbidding / of the / own (ones) / of his / to be ministering / to him.

Note that for all 4 of these verses the unspoken noun after the word "own" was understood to be there in thought. And it was a noun showing some sort of personal attachment.
Thus, in the need for consistency, the New World Translation follows the same rule for treating "ὁ ἴδιος [ho i′di·os] without a noun expressed" at Acts 20:28
"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."
Be you(plural) paying attention / to selves / and / to all / the / flock, / in / which / you(plural) / the / spirit / the / holy / put / overseers / to be shepherding / the / ecclesia / of the / God, / which / he reserved for self / through / the / blood / of the / own (one).

 

[Wharton]

Did you ever do any further research into that letter or its motive....or did you just take it at a propagandists's face value?

It was easy to check even with Wiki....

"The Declaration of Facts was a widely distributed public statement issued by Jehovah's Witnesses during the period ofpersecution of the religion in Nazi Germany. The document, which asserted the religion's political neutrality, appealed for the right to publicly preach and claimed it was the victim of a misinformation campaign by other religions, was prepared byWatch Tower Society president Joseph F. Rutherford and released at a convention in Berlin on June 25, 1933. More than 2.1 million copies of the statement were distributed throughout Germany, with copies also mailed to senior government officials including German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.[1] Its distribution prompted a new wave of persecution against German Witnesses"

Please read the full article.... Declaration of Facts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh and here I thought JW's were not to be part of this world. So being "pro-German" fits that requirement?

 

[Wharton]

beget
bɪˈɡɛt/
verb
literary

(especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.

1. "they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen"
   synonyms: father, sire, engender, generate, spawn, create, give life to, bring into being, bring into the world, have;
   procreate, reproduce, breed.
   
   I think I know what "beget" means......but do you?

(Edit) If the same word is used for God 'begetting' his son and the terms "father" and "son" are what we understand in our own relationships, wouldn't God use other terminology so as not to confuse us? You are assuming it means something different, but the Bible doesn't say that.

I'm not assuming anything. You beget the same, not different.

 

[JayJayDee]

Oh and here I thought JW's were not to be part of this world. So being "pro-German" fits that requirement?

Your prejudice is showing. You didn't read the Wiki article, did you?

It had nothing to do with being pro-German. If you had read the article, you would see what the motivation was. Not reading it just shows that your own bias is making you look foolish.

Do you believe every awful thing you are told about JW's? That's entirely up to you, but that is the same tactic the devil used to persuade the Jews and the Romans to execute Jesus and persecute his disciples. (John 15:118-21)

 

[JayJayDee]

I'm not assuming anything. You beget the same, not different.

Yes, God is a spirit....Jesus was created as a spirit. I agree with you...you beget the same.

Just because he was existing in spirit form like his Father doesn't make him Almighty God....it makes him divine.

 

[katiemygirl]

If you're referring to John 1:18, that is incorrect. If you check the textual apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (which actually renders it monogenes Theos, as do all the translations which use it, in case you are worried about bias), it cites a number of manuscripts which contain monogenes Huios. There are others that just say monogenes and omit either word. There are apparently more manuscripts that contain "son" than contain "god" in that verse, and from more diverse textual sources, but the oldest manuscripts (albeit all alexandrian in origin) which Nestle-Aland favors contain Theos.

The controversy about that passage is not about translation, but about which text to favor. And it's not even really a question of picking the "Trinitarian" side versus the other side. To the best of my knowledge, the most important Trinitarian fathers (Basil, Gregory Nazianzen) cited it as monogenes Huios, as did John Chrysostom in his commentary and others. Whereas the Arians preferred the Theos version. The eastern orthodox churches (not exactly a bastion of anti-trinitarianism) prefer the "only-begotten son" version.

Honestly I think as far as the argument about trinitarianism goes, establishing the text of this verse shouldn't really settle the matter either way.

What is important is that the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read
monogenēs theos which is undoubtedly the true text.

 

[katiemygirl]

[="Kolibri, post: 4157940, member: 55852"]
New World Translation (2013 Revision)
English word for word translation based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text

Word for word? Show me the WORD JEHOVAH in Westcott and Hort's text.....for starters.

The NWT is a perversion of God's word. Words have been changed, added and omitted to alter the meanings so it agrees with Watchtower doctrine.

The NWT is not reliable or consistent. It is a sectarian paraphrase. It is a tool of Satan on par with the Book of Mormon and the Koran.

 

[Wharton]

Your prejudice is showing. You didn't read the Wiki article, did you?

It had nothing to do with being pro-German. If you had read the article, you would see what the motivation was. Not reading it just shows that your own bias is making you look foolish.

Do you believe every awful thing you are told about JW's? That's entirely up to you, but that is the same tactic the devil used to persuade the Jews and the Romans to execute Jesus and persecute his disciples. (John 15:118-21)

There's no prejudice. It's simple comprehension. So what don't you comprehend? It states PRO-GERMAN. Pro-German is pro-German and violates your 'not of this world' prime directive.

 

[Wharton]

Yes, God is a spirit....Jesus was created as a spirit. I agree with you...you beget the same.

Just because he was existing in spirit form like his Father doesn't make him Almighty God....it makes him divine.

You're getting close. Angels are spirit also, but of a different kind/essence. Let's put it in a simpler form. The father begets the son. They are spirits of the same 'DNA.' Angels are spirits but not of the same 'DNA.' The only difference between the father and the son is procession. The essence/nature is the same. Now if you understood what first century Christians did about the eternal NOW where there is no time then there is no time that God the Son (Jesus) did not exist.

BTW, if you take the 'time' to beget a son why would you want him to be inferior to you?

Like I stated before, you need to have the NWT changed to 'only-created Son' to reflect the difference in essence/nature between the father and the son that you keep stating.

 

[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?

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

We were talking about Acts 20:28, weren’t we?

 

[cataway]

"his own [Son]? Where is that in the bible?
We were talking about Acts 20:28, weren’t we?

all scripture ,on a subject ,has to work with other scripture . if it does not its no better than someone inventing/twisting scripture to fill a need of beliefs.
its well known that when translating one language to another, that sometimes , something gets lost in the translation .when that happens words have to be used to complete whats been said. sorry, you for your part ,..............you're supporting a weak argument .