Did you know Jesus is considered as a different god according to scripture?

[seekandfind]

Other living things are only referred to as false gods, fake gods, or worthless idols.

Jesus is YWHW, the One true God, Creator in unity with the Father and Holy Spirit.

If Jesus is Yhwh who is 'my lord'?
[COLOR=var(--du-color--textDefault, #292929)]
Jesus asked them: “How is it, then, that David under inspiration calls him Lord, saying, ‘Yhwh said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?- Mt 22:43-44[/COLOR]

 

[seekandfind]

Other living things are only referred to as false gods, fake gods, or worthless idols.

Jesus is YWHW, the One true God, Creator in unity with the Father and Holy Spirit.

If Jesus is Yhwh who is 'my lord'?
[COLOR=var(--du-color--textDefault, #292929)]
Jesus asked them: “How is it, then, that David under inspiration calls him Lord, saying, ‘Yhwh said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?- Mt 22:43-44[/COLOR]

Also, Jesus has a God, Yhwh doesnt have one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After receiving a link to one of my personal studies of John's understanding of John 1:1c containing many steps which could be examined and discussed honestly, S.Z. wrote:

S.Z.: "That looks like a Jehovah's Witness source. Not exactly reliable. You should try to see what actual biblical scholars say."

He then "answers" the request to discuss the study (not prejudge as he did):


"The tu quoque fallacy
Rather than coming up with a valid counterargument, those using the tu quoque fallacy invalidate their opponent's criticisms by addressing them with another criticism. With this kind of argument, you find a way to attack your opponent instead of coming up with a logical reason to argue against their original claim." - Logical Fallacies: 15 Examples of Common Fallacies.

Does anyone here value truth and honesty enough to discuss the various steps found in my study?

Where was the "tu quoque fallacy.

Here is a suggestion, instead of making assumptions ask questions when you do not understand.

 

[Soapy]

What is the MEANING of the word, “GOD”?

Could it be ‘MIGHTY ONE’?

So, in all cases where you see the word, ‘God’, you can substitute ‘Mighty One’.

Please do so and see what you get?

Take note of ‘ALMIGHTY GOD’. This is EXCLUSIVELY ‘YHWH’ God.

I find Trinitarians do not like writing ‘Almighty God’ since they know that Jesus Christ is not ‘ALMIGHTY GOD’. They effectively admitting that they just say ’Jesus Christ is a mighty one’, which you rightly point out can apply to:

• Satan
• The great prophets and holy men
• Jesus Christ (and note that I use the title ‘Christ’ since Jesus DID NOTHING OF MIGHTINESS BEFORE HE WAS ANOINTED WITH HOLY SPIRIT AND POWER’

Therefore, it can be said, ‘God, YOUR GOD, will make you…‘.

Which means: ‘Mighty one, your God [a higher mighty one, namely Yhwh] will make you…!’

Point of fact, when Satan is called ‘God’, why is it claimed as ‘not Almighty God’?

When Moses is called ‘God’, why is it claimed as different, as ‘not Almighty God’?

When holy men, as you point out from that verse, are called ‘GOD’ as Jesus Christ says… why is it dismissed as ‘not Almighty God’?

True, such terms are NOT referring to THE ALMIGHTY GOD… yet when Jesus is called ‘God’ it immediately is supposed to mean ‘ALMIGHTY GOD’ even when the context shows that is not the case (another ‘not Almighty God’)

Please keep up the good work in showing the truth which dispels fallacy and paganistic ideology.

 

[TiggerII]

Where was the "tu quoque fallacy.

Here is a suggestion, instead of making assumptions ask questions when you do not understand.

Your use of the tq fallacy was obviously answering my posting the link to my study "Primer for the study of John1:1c" with absolutely no comments on the contents of that study (as explained in #18).

Your follow-up after I even posted the beginning of that study (#19), was the above (#23). How about actually reading my study from the beginning and pointing out the "errors" for me (and others) as you find them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your use of the tq fallacy was obviously answering my posting the link to my study "Primer for the study of John1:1c" with absolutely no comments on the contents of that study (as explained in #18.

Your follow-up after I even posted the beginning of that study (#19), was the above (#23). How about actually reading my study from the beginning and pointing out the "errors" for me (and others) as you find them?

That is not what a tu Quoque fallacy is. Your source was put in doubt. You may be confused about logical fallacies.

 

[TiggerII]

That is not what a tu Quoque fallacy is. Your source was put in doubt. You may be confused about logical fallacies.

"The tu quoque fallacy
Rather than coming up with a valid counterargument, those using the tu quoque fallacy invalidate their opponent's criticisms by addressing them with another criticism. With this kind of argument, you find a way to attack your opponent instead of coming up with a logical reason to argue against their original claim." - Logical Fallacies: 15 Examples of Common Fallacies.

Yes, the definition given by the source I found may well be a mistaken use of tu quoque. The definition itself was obviously a reasoning fallacy by whatever name you call it. But the point I was clearly making was your constant use of verbiage which avoids the issue. And you continue to do so with this latest post.

Are you, then, admitting that you have no answers to my study which you denigrate but refuse to show my "errors" (which do not include the proper name for reasoning errors).

I have even given you the very first part of my study. Please show my errors before we go on to the next part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The tu quoque fallacy
Rather than coming up with a valid counterargument, those using the tu quoque fallacy invalidate their opponent's criticisms by addressing them with another criticism. With this kind of argument, you find a way to attack your opponent instead of coming up with a logical reason to argue against their original claim." - Logical Fallacies: 15 Examples of Common Fallacies.

Yes, the definition given by the source I found may well be a mistaken use of tu quoque. The definition itself was obviously a reasoning fallacy by whatever name you call it. But the point I was clearly making was your constant use of verbiage which avoids the issue. And you continue to do so with this latest post.

Are you, then, admitting that you have no answers to my study which you denigrate but refuse to show my "errors" (which do not include the proper name for reasoning errors).

I have even given you the very first part of my study. Please show my errors before we go on to the next part.

I see your error. I did come up with a valid counterargument. You merely denied it. One huge problem with the JW church is that they interpret the Bible too literally. That is a self defeating stance to take since the Bible endlessly refutes itself when one does so.

 

[cataway]

A god ?? yes ,yet far from equal . yet submissive to the true God

 

[TiggerII]

I see your error. I did come up with a valid counterargument. You merely denied it. One huge problem with the JW church is that they interpret the Bible too literally. That is a self defeating stance to take since the Bible endlessly refutes itself when one does so.

Still evading the study itself. This has been the subject for discussion from the beginning.

Do I really have to show you how to analyze a study? I even gave you a tiny bit of the beginning of it (post#19), but you will not reply.

You could admit that what is written in post #19 is correct. Or you could reply to this "when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God." You could say, for example, that there is no reason to exempt such examples and demand that I PROVE IT. Or you could find an exception in the NT Greek text.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still evading the study itself. This has been the subject for discussion from the beginning.

Do I really have to show you how to analyze a study? I even gave you a tiny bit of the beginning of it (post#19), but you will not reply.

You could admit that what is written in post #19 is correct. Or you could reply to this "when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God." You could say, for example, that there is no reason to exempt such examples and demand that I PROVE IT. Or you could find an exception in the NT Greek text.

Because I do not trust the source. If you want to convince other people that you are right you should try to find unbiased sources. If all that you can do is to post sources that parrot your beliefs but do not seem to have any widespread acceptance it only looks as if you are supporting a fringe belief.

In other words, you need to do your own homework if you want to convince others.

By the way, if you want to play word games then you need to find actual scholars that support you. You are not a valid source when it comes to that, I am not one, nor do I believe the authors of that article are valid sources.

 

[TiggerII]

Because I do not trust the source. If you want to convince other people that you are right you should try to find unbiased sources. If all that you can do is to post sources that parrot your beliefs but do not seem to have any widespread acceptance it only looks as if you are supporting a fringe belief.

In other words, you need to do your own homework if you want to convince others.

By the way, if you want to play word games then you need to find actual scholars that support you. You are not a valid source when it comes to that, I am not one, nor do I believe the authors of that article are valid sources.

I am the sole author of that study and took many years of accumulating the sources of the respected trinitarian scholars I cited therein. Obviously you have not even scanned it! It's no wonder you can't critique it!
..........................................
Is there anyone here who can actually read a lengthy article and apply common sense to a discussion of it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am the sole author of that study and took many years of accumulating the sources of the respected trinitarian scholars I cited therein. Obviously you have not even scanned it! It's no wonder you can't critique it!
..........................................
Is there anyone here who can actually read a lengthy article and apply common sense to a discussion of it?

Well that explains it. One should never use oneself as a reference in a debate. When one does that one's opponent can simply answer "because I said so" as well. Tell me, where did you study theology? Where did you study Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? What professional journals have you published in? I did scan it. It looked rather pathetic. Claims without any proper support.

It looks as if it were written by someone still in high school that did not realize that one avoids even the appearance of excessive Green Ink in a serious paper

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

One has to read the article on the site to truly appreciate it.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Caveat...i am Trinitarian.

This debate topic is so widely debated and comprehensively refuted its really a no brainer. The fact that the council of Nicea many centuries ago has already addressed this and should be enough....but nooo, we in our apparently enlightened age seem to think we must know better and many individuals try to use a better modern interpretation of apparently what the writers of scripture must have meant in order to promote modern versions of ancient doctrines. The problem with this is that many of the church fathers lived at a time far closer to Christ and the Apostles...almost as close to eyewitness accounts as we can get. I very much doubt these individuals had any trouble knowing what was expected of them in the promoting of doctrines that came from Christ and his apostles.

Whilst i do not agree with all of the fundamental theology of the Baptist movement, one of the most well-known biblical scholars in the trinity debate is Dr James White...he is a world-renowned expert in textual criticism and has performed hundreds of debates of which a large number of them are on the trinity.

One thing that you will notice in just about any debate on this topic:

1. the naysayers almost always make very poor interpretations of scriptural cross referencing in order to apparently deny the doctrine...they take a very narrow windowed approach to the way in which they collate supporting references.
2. There is no word trinity in the bible, you wont find it in there anywhere!

I would suggest if one truly wishes to make well-referenced choices on this topic they take the time to listen to the debates on it from experts. You will get both sides of the argument in great detail...

- James White vs Iglesia Ni Cristo (Cristo presents some of the worst arguments against trinitarianism i have ever seen...its a woeful example of academic argument)

- James White vs Roger Perkins (Rojer is probably one of the strongest debaters i have seen supporting the non-trinitarian side)

- James & Dan Brown (Messianic Jew) vs Mainstream Jews ...Dr White and Dr Brown completely wipe the floor with the Jewish debators in this one)

- James White vs Greg Stafford (a Jehovah's Witness at the time but is currently an apostate with his own movement) This is a very strong debate and Greg Stafford presents a very strong series of arguments against Trinitarianism.


Here is another reference, this time William Lane Craig (who also happens to be an Old Earth believer...unfortunately)

- a discussion between William Lane Craig and Dale Tuggy


I will finish by saying that generally, the Jehovah's Witness promoting of Arianism is deeply deeply flawed...many of their doctrines are woeful examples of interpretation of scripture. Indeed, the very nature of the way in which that movement controls its membership is psychologically harmful to one's well-being. I am sorry to say that it really is a cult because of this mind-control game that its leadership play with members. The idea that the movement promotes sit-down sessions with individuals diving deep into their personal lives (including marriage practices in the home...particularly physical sexual interaction between husband and wife is abominable). I reject any religion that believes that the method of demanding personal honest answers in such sessions because its a sin not to, is highly questionable and in my view immoral. We then add to that the ongoing practice (despite claims to the contrary which are false) of the "shunning" of others, even immediate family members (on occasion even husbands shunning wives living in the same home) is beyond belief. There are examples of JW husbands and wives who remain married but have no interaction with each other in the home because of this practice...its a woeful example of apparent Christianity!

Shunning references

Interview: Former JW Elder Speaks Out Against Shunning - Former JW Elder speaks out against shunning

What It's Like To Be Shunned By Your Own Mother

Something a lot of you know about me is that I am an ex Jehovah's Witness. Today, I wanted to tell my story about being shunned by my family, including my mo...

youtu.be

- What its like to be shunned by your own mother (uploaded 2 months ago and proof the practice continues today)
How Jehovah's Witnesses Destroy Family Relationships - How Jehovahs Witnesses destroy family relationships

Dr. Phil’s SmackDown of JW.ORG’s Shunning Rules

Dr. Phil takes on Jehovah's Witnesses shunning (disfellowshipping) policy

youtu.be

- Dr Phils smackdown of JW.org Shunning rules "if someone tells me that i should shun my wife and children, they can kiss my ***"

And finally the most damning of all...2015 Child Sexual abuse Australian Government Royal Comission Report

the problem here is that the JW organization tried to hide and cover up the abuse and secondly, did not follow the law in reporting it to the authorities... instead dealing with it within their own ranks in a manner which was also grossly inadequate.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/case-study-29-jehovahs-witnesses

Anyway...ill stop my rant about JW here before i waste any more space on them as its offtopic to this thread...

 

[TiggerII]

Caveat...i am Trinitarian.

This debate topic is so widely debated and comprehensively refuted its really a no brainer. The fact that the council of Nicea many centuries ago has already addressed this and should be enough....but nooo, we in our apparently enlightened age seem to think we must know better and many individuals try to use a better modern interpretation of apparently what the writers of scripture must have meant in order to promote modern versions of ancient doctrines. The problem with this is that many of the church fathers lived at a time far closer to Christ and the Apostles...almost as close to eyewitness accounts as we can get. I very much doubt these individuals had any trouble knowing what was expected of them in the promoting of doctrines that came from Christ and his apostles.

Whilst i do not agree with all of the fundamental theology of the Baptist movement, one of the most well-known biblical scholars in the trinity debate is Dr James White...he is a world-renowned expert in textual criticism and has performed hundreds of debates of which a large number of them are on the trinity.

One thing that you will notice in just about any debate on this topic:

1. the naysayers almost always make very poor interpretations of scriptural cross referencing in order to apparently deny the doctrine...they take a very narrow windowed approach to the way in which they collate supporting references.
2. There is no word trinity in the bible, you wont find it in there anywhere!

I would suggest if one truly wishes to make well-referenced choices on this topic they take the time to listen to the debates on it from experts. You will get both sides of the argument in great detail...

- James White vs Iglesia Ni Cristo (Cristo presents some of the worst arguments against trinitarianism i have ever seen...its a woeful example of academic argument)

- James White vs Roger Perkins (Rojer is probably one of the strongest debaters i have seen supporting the non-trinitarian side)

- James & Dan Brown (Messianic Jew) vs Mainstream Jews ...Dr White and Dr Brown completely wipe the floor with the Jewish debators in this one)

- James White vs Greg Stafford (a Jehovah's Witness at the time but is currently an apostate with his own movement) This is a very strong debate and Greg Stafford presents a very strong series of arguments against Trinitarianism.


Here is another reference, this time William Lane Craig (who also happens to be an Old Earth believer...unfortunately)

- a discussion between William Lane Craig and Dale Tuggy


I will finish by saying that generally, the Jehovah's Witness promoting of Arianism is deeply deeply flawed...many of their doctrines are woeful examples of interpretation of scripture. Indeed, the very nature of the way in which that movement controls its membership is psychologically harmful to one's well-being. I am sorry to say that it really is a cult because of this mind-control game that its leadership play with members. The idea that the movement promotes sit-down sessions with individuals diving deep into their personal lives (including marriage practices in the home...particularly physical sexual interaction between husband and wife is abominable). I reject any religion that believes that the method of demanding personal honest answers in such sessions because its a sin not to, is highly questionable and in my view immoral. We then add to that the ongoing practice (despite claims to the contrary which are false) of the "shunning" of others, even immediate family members (on occasion even husbands shunning wives living in the same home) is beyond belief. There are examples of JW husbands and wives who remain married but have no interaction with each other in the home because of this practice...its a woeful example of apparent Christianity!

Shunning references

Interview: Former JW Elder Speaks Out Against Shunning - Former JW Elder speaks out against shunning

What It's Like To Be Shunned By Your Own Mother

Something a lot of you know about me is that I am an ex Jehovah's Witness. Today, I wanted to tell my story about being shunned by my family, including my mo...

youtu.be

- What its like to be shunned by your own mother (uploaded 2 months ago and proof the practice continues today)
How Jehovah's Witnesses Destroy Family Relationships - How Jehovahs Witnesses destroy family relationships

Dr. Phil’s SmackDown of JW.ORG’s Shunning Rules

Dr. Phil takes on Jehovah's Witnesses shunning (disfellowshipping) policy

youtu.be

- Dr Phils smackdown of JW.org Shunning rules "if someone tells me that i should shun my wife and children, they can kiss my ***"

And finally the most damning of all...2015 Child Sexual abuse Australian Government Royal Comission Report

the problem here is that the JW organization tried to hide and cover up the abuse and secondly, did not follow the law in reporting it to the authorities... instead dealing with it within their own ranks in a manner which was also grossly inadequate.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/case-study-29-jehovahs-witnesses

Anyway...ill stop my rant about JW here before i waste any more space on them as its offtopic to this thread...

Another person ignoring the study by criticizing others. A clear fundamental reasoning fallacy.

 

[TiggerII]

Well that explains it. One should never use oneself as a reference in a debate. When one does that one's opponent can simply answer "because I said so" as well. Tell me, where did you study theology? Where did you study Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? What professional journals have you published in? I did scan it. It looked rather pathetic. Claims without any proper support.

It looks as if it were written by someone still in high school that did not realize that one avoids even the appearance of excessive Green Ink in a serious paper

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

One has to read the article on the site to truly appreciate it.

Yes, if only someone would.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, if only someone would.

So even that very basic article was beyond your understanding? That does not bode well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another person ignoring the study by criticizing others. A clear fundamental reasoning fallacy.

It was not a "study". You admitted that when you owned up to being the writer.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Another person ignoring the study by criticizing others. A clear fundamental reasoning fallacy.

oooh so you think that the Australian government Royal Comission report on how the JW church not only covered up the sexual assault, but also tried to destroy evidence, is a fallacy?

Knowing that you are JW and are not allowed to actually read outside of watchtowers publications, (we all know for a fact that your denomination actively discourages all of its members from using external resources other than those of Watchtower) more than likely you didnt even read the Australian Royal Comission report before commenting. As evidence of my claim, let me state that if you had of read the report, instead of using the usual non reading standard type of JW answer such as the "you are criticizing others" one would have thought that you would present at least some rational and supported evidence to the contrary...but as is usual with your denomination, you have not!


I suggest that anyone who believes that report (on the sexual abuse failure to report to authorities and subsequent cover up by the JW organization) is influenced by Satan and not really true, is an imbecile. I think i have every right to criticize. If my own denomination that i follow did that, i would do the same to them!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In my years as an evangelical Christian and evangelistic team leader, I considered Jehovah's Witnesses to be among the least knowledgeable about the Bible outside of their church doctrines. I used to witness to them whenever they attempted to challenge me and my evangelism team while we were street preaching. They tried to challenge us about our evangelistic message and interpretation of the Bible. Of course, we were able to counter everything they threw at us, and most of them eventually gave up and left. But some of them remained behind to continue listening to us and talking with us. There were some among these who converted to evangelicalism and then trained to street preach, like my team and I were. I've also had some come to my house and attempt to convert me, but given my background as an evangelism team leader, I was able to counter their evangelistic tactics by asking them questions about the Bible that they weren't prepared to answer or maybe weren't taught to answer. After this happened a few times, they apparently wised up and quit coming to my house. To be honest, I'm relieved that they finally gave up because they were becoming rather annoying because of their incessant zeal to evangelize. I'm no longer a Christian, but due to my years as one, I can still give them a run for their money whenever I encounter them at a friend's or neighbor's house. In my experience with Jehovah's Witnesses, their knowledge of the Bible was limited to the scriptures and doctrines they were taught. I will say that none of them performed well when they were pushed to deviate from the script when asked questions they weren't prepared to answer. I'm not sure if this is true for all of them, but it was true of those I've met. I suppose some of them are better trained to evangelize than others in their church.

That's been my general observation. Southern Baptists may be very insular as a denomination, but the Bible learning is so heavily emphasised that I could still easily counter preach to JWs despite everything I've forgotten. But more than others, that group has been rather low on Biblical knowledge. One particular group who was trying to convert oldest nephew's girlfriend eventually sent an Elder because the girlfriend let me gnaw on street preachers amd they were powerless and hopeless against me. The Elder, I don't know if he has the same lack of knowledge as he kept things more friendly and barely touched the religion thing but after that the girlfiend was left alone.
But to many denominations I doubt there is a greater adversary and challenge than an apostate who was highly devouted and dedicated to Bible study. That's a group that didn't get special attention as far as witnessing techniques go. That went to the atheist even though the atheist can't rip them apart and humiliate them like an apostate who knows all that stuff as well. Amd if the apostate knows more there won't even be any points for effort, just the feeling of a deep shame amd embarrassment you just got outshined big time in a subject and matetial source you claim to love akd dedicate your life to.