first-born of all creation

[james2ko]

The big three" hahahahahahahaha. Niceeee. They've already been refuted, time to move to greener pastures, my friend

9. No they haven't. You pawned me off to a link. I refuted the link and you did not offer a rebuttal. Your only response was because of your bias, you agree with the refuted link. That is not a rebuttal. I can't even get you to come up with a sensible parse to Isa 43:10-11. Someone defending a controversial doctrine like the trinity should know what it means and how to do it. You do know what parse means and how to properly parse a passage, right?

Ohhh, I get where you are coming from now, the whole "Before me no god was formed" business, right? The only problem is, the following verses, like 16, states "This is what the Lord says, he who made a way through the sea, a path through the mighty waters, who drew out the chariots and horses and army and reinforcements together..."So the person speaking in verse 16 is the same person speaking in 10-11, right...so if that is Jesus talking throughout the context, as you admit, then Jesus is God because throughout the entire context Exodus, it is God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt and it is God who parted the Red Sea..."God" who? Well, according to verse 16..."God Jesus".So, that doesnt help you at all, my friends...

10. Did you notice how you downplay the verse's content and completely failed to comment on the main verb of the passage---"formed"--which in the nifal stem, as is listed here, means "someone created"? This means Jesus is admitting to being a created God. As I alluded to earlier, you may want to leave your head in the sand and avoid understanding the grammar of this passage because Christ being created destroys the trinity concept.

and not only that, but look at the following chapter..Isa 44:6...is the Lord speaking in that verse the same one speaking in the previous chapter? Which is it..the Father or the Son? You tell me.

11. A created Jesus does not negate Him from being called "God" any less than created angels being called YHVH in the OT (Gen 19:18).

Still harping on Isa, huh? Lets see...

12. Absolutely, and as evidenced by your responses, one you are severely struggling with and would love to get away from.

"For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior".Huh?

13. Wow. You have your head wrapped so tight around the trinity that you actually believe eisegesis is exegesis. You are reading into the passage the trinity doctrine. Nothing in this passage remotely states Christ was never a created God/Savior.

LOL just let me know when you want me to make that thread, buddy. Hmm, then how about I start a thread making a case for the Trinity, and there you can have a chance to shoot down every single case that I make. Are you a man or a mouse?

14. We cannot move on until you disprove Isa 43:10-11. Which you have yet to do. Hence there is no need to continue as this one verse debunks the so called trinity texts, as far as I'm concerned. Your eisegetic argument holds no water against the passage's irrefutable syntactical and grammatical evidence.. Come up with a valid argument against Isa 43:10 and we can dive into your trinity. Makes no sense to dive into a pool with no water.

I was responding to something you said before that...I dont remember what it was.

15. You may want to start popping some memory supplements. If you can't remember what you said a few posts back, you are going to be in big trouble the longer our conversation continues.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. It is perfectly logical for you to have an argument for the trinity independent of scripture because the trinity doctrine is not found in neither the Hebrew or Greek. The point in a debate is to refute your opponent not yourself.

That's my point, based on my argument I can't help but draw the conclusion that all trinity-proof texts should be just that: Trinity-proof texts. I can let the bible speak for itself and still draw the same conclusion, unlike you and others that have to add words to the bible.

2. So in other words you accept the validity of the meaning of prototokos but it doesn't matter because you believe other evidence disproves it. If you deem it valid, it actually does matter because this would render your evidence against it moot. Contradicting yourself in a debate isn't a good idea either.

The debate is regarding a specific couple of verses in the bible, namely, Col 1:15-17. There is controversy over the rendering of [other] in the context, and whether this word should indeed be in the context. This is controversial...both sides make their case...since I am no Greek scholar, I have to found out where else in the bible is my case being made by the authors, and if there are more scriptures in the bible that make my trinity case than otherwise, then I can't help but interpret Col 1:15-17 in my favor.

See how that works? You call it the "big 3"...I call it the "only 3". That is all you have, and Col 1:15-17 is highly controversial...but what isn't controversial is the fact that the word in question is not in the earliest manuscripts we have. That is a problem for you, my friend.

3. Christ explicitly states He was a one of a kind "created" [yatsawr-verb-nifal stem, third person, perfect tense] God by someone other than Himself in the past. This third person was obviously the Father. A created Christ means He was "a" God, giving credence to the versions containing the indefinite article "a" after God in Joh 1:1.

Wait a minute, because he was created that means he was "a" God? Im sorry but that doesn't follow logically, and it certainly doesn't follow biblically. Again, scripture has to interpret scripture and the following verses and chapters of the same verse in question does not suggest what you are claiming.

And then not only that, but in Isa 43:12 it states "You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, that I am God".

I guess the definite article is supposed to be in that verse, too, huh? You already admitted that Jesus is speaking in the verses before verse 12, and the same person is speaking one verse later...and the person that is speaking calls himself GOD. Not "a" God...but God.

This also tells us He has not existed from eternity, hence no trinity. There's no other way around this verse, believe me I looked.

There is, actually.

I did not want to give up my binitarian view, as I thought it was just as correct as you think about the trinity. But pride has to be put aside and let the text interpret itself without injecting in our presuppositions.

I don't have pride, what I have is dozens of trinity-proof texts. That is better than pride.

4. Ok, I'll try to enlighten you "again".

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed[yawtar], Nor shall there be after Me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.
​

The verb "formed"[H3335], in vs 10, is in what grammarians call the third person, nifal stem, perfect tense. The third person simply means the subject (Christ) is referring to someone other than Himself as the producer of the action (created). The nifal stem gives the verb a nuance of something being created. It also gives the verb a passive form making the subject (Christ) the recipient of the action.

As just mentioned, a verse later the person speaking called himself God. Oh I get it, you are going to make the case that Jesus is a "mighty" God, but Yahweh is the "Almighty" God...are you going to make that distinction just like our beloved JW's will do???

The verse is very explict, the speaker called himself God, and also stated (in the next chapter, I believe) that he was the one responsible for the destruction of Pharaoh and his men regarding the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea business. The only problem is for Witnesses is, even in their NWT, throughout the book of Exodus, Jehovah is the one labeled as responsible for it...but in Isa, Jesus (as you admitted) is taking responsibility for it.

So which is it, Jesus or Jehovah? Hmmmm.

The perfect tense implies a completed past action. What does this all mean? The subject (EL/Christ) is telling us someone other than Himself (third person-The Father) has (perfect tense--completed action) created (nifal stem) no other "God" like Him (Christ) nor shall He (The Father) create One like Him (Christ) in the future! In other words, Christ was created/formed as one of a kind! That Christ was created is confirmed by Paul and John (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14)!

No matter how many different spins you want to put on it, you have been refuted :beach:

Unless you can come up with an alternate parsing of this verse, we have to conclude it is stating that Christ was a created God.

Looks like to me I just did.

6. Once again. You are dictating your doctrine into the text. Instead of allowing the text to dictate the doctrine. There are two beings spoken of in Joh 1:1-3. They are both called "God". Just as you would have a Father named Mr Smith senior and His son Mr Smith junior. Both are "Smiths", one greater (older, wiser, more authority) than the other. Verse 2 states the lesser God (Jesus) was with the greater God in the beginning, and verse 3 tells us the greater God made all things through the lesser God--Christ. In other words, both Father and Son were involved in the creation of the universe evidenced by the plural term "elohim" in Gen 1:1.

"The lesser God". That is how so many different denominations and sects of Christianity start...with false doctrine. Again, put the word "other" in the same context of John 1:3 as Col 1:15-17. The word is not in either, and I will keep stressing that point.

The Father was the source of His Son's creative power hence consistent with the text when it states "all things were made through Him"--Christ (Joh 1:3). The last part of the passage can be translated, "and nothing was created except through Him-Christ. In other words, Christ was the only being given the power by the Father to create everything.

Non-biblical.

7. No it doesn't because you are attempting to make two distinct persons into one.

The Trinitarian view is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons that share the same Deity/Nature. They are all co-eternal, and they all possess the maximally great properties of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence. A biblcal case can be made for it all.

What does make sense is if Jesus and the Father were both members of the God family. The Father was the first member of the God (Smith) family. The Father then created (Pro 8:22;Isa 43:10; Col 1:15; Rev 3:16) Christ (Smith Jr) as the second member of the God family. Hence both are considered "Gods/Smiths". One greater than the other (Joh 14:28). The Father, who was indirectly involved in the creation, has lived forever in the past (Ps 90:2) Christ, who was directly involved, has not (Isa 43:10).

Phil 2:5-9 (one of my favorites) state that Jesus had to give up what he had in order to take that second-ranking that you are referring to. If he had to give it up in order to be in second place, then what was he before he gave it up?? FIRST PLACE.

8. That's like a police officer accusing and arresting the first bystander he sees at a crime scene. I'm sorry to say, but this approach is reflected in your poor biblical hermeneutics.

Trust me, the feeling is very mutual. For you to claim that you aren't a JW, there are many similarities between you and them...if it looks like a duck...well, you know the rest :beach:

 

[kjw47]

"who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation," Colossians 1:15

The above verse often is understood to mean that Jesus existed before all other creation, but when we look at the term 'firstborn', and 'created beings', in the light of the context of the whole Bible, it does not really indicate literally the firstborn of creation of the world, No!, It is only in the sense of being the first in His Age who was born among the spiritually dead people. These verses makes it clear:

"And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy" Colossians 1:18

The term 'dead' in above verse has a spiritual signification, similar to:

"Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Ephesians 5:14

According to this concept that by coming of Jesus revelation a 'new man' was created, that caused the 'dead' to rise from their spiritual sleep, Jesus Himself is considered to be the Firstborn among all those who were created new. This concept is seen from the following verse:


"and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" Colossians 3:10

Who is Gods master worker? Who did God create all things through= Jesus--Proverbs 8= Gods master worker-1Cor 1:30)verse 8--- produced( created) me as the beginning of your ways( created Jesus first and last directly) --truly the firstborn of all creation--that is why this = 100% truth--John 20:17, Rev 3:12--Jesus has a God. When one listens to Jesus this becomes reality--John 4:22-24

 

[james2ko]

That's my point, based on my argument I can't help but draw the conclusion that all trinity-proof texts should be just that: Trinity-proof texts. I can let the bible speak for itself and still draw the same conclusion, unlike you and others that have to add words to the bible.

1. You let the bible speak for itself? But you implied you don't need the bible to interpret itself because your trinitarian argument is independent of translations and the ancient biblical languages:

I have an argument for the Trinity that is independent of biblical translations or versions, and as long as this is the case, then Hebrew, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, or any other ancient transcripts are irrelevant.

Looks like another contradiction. How many is that so far- three or four? I gave you a fair warning. The longer we continue the more contradictions I will expose.

The debate is regarding a specific couple of verses in the bible, namely, Col 1:15-17. There is controversy over the rendering of [other] in the context, and whether this word should indeed be in the context. This is controversial...both sides make their case...

2. This point refers to the term prototokos not "other". You've already accepted the validity of prototokos meaning first created. Now you are backtracking?

since I am no Greek scholar, I have to found out where else in the bible is my case being made by the authors, and if there are more scriptures in the bible that make my trinity case than otherwise, then I can't help but interpret Col 1:15-17 in my favor.

3. But you said in point 1 you don't need the bible to make your case?? You really are confused.

See how that works? You call it the "big 3"...I call it the "only 3". That is all you have, and Col 1:15-17 is highly controversial...but what isn't controversial is the fact that the word in question is not in the earliest manuscripts we have. That is a problem for you, my friend.

4. That is not my problem. That is the NWT's problem, which I do not use. The versions I study do not have the term, yet I was still able to prove Christ was created. Besides, you said yourself it is common sense that Christ could not create Himself so at the end of the day, the term's appearance is inconsequential.

Wait a minute, because he was created that means he was "a" God? Im sorry but that doesn't follow logically, and it certainly doesn't follow biblically. Again, scripture has to interpret scripture and the following verses and chapters of the same verse in question does not suggest what you are claiming. And then not only that, but in Isa 43:12 it states "You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, that I am God". I guess the definite article is supposed to be in that verse, too, huh? You already admitted that Jesus is speaking in the verses before verse 12, and the same person is speaking one verse later...and the person that is speaking calls himself GOD. Not "a" God...but God.

5. Of course it does. It was biblical to the translators from the translations I posted that use the indefinite article "a" in John 1:1 (and none were the NWT). Besides, the definite article "the" is used to specifically identify the Father in John 1:1 but no article is used to identify the Son. If there is no distinction between the two, as trinitarians propose, why is the definite article missing in identifying Christ? I'll tell you why, because The Father is "the" One True God and Christ is just "God" or "a" God. For example, if Mr Smith has a firstborn son, his son becomes "a" Smith and is simply called Mr. Smith. Likewise, The Father (God) created a firstborn Son as "a" God and is frequently referred to as "God".

As just mentioned, a verse later the person speaking called himself God. Oh I get it, you are going to make the case that Jesus is a "mighty" God, but Yahweh is the "Almighty" God...are you going to make that distinction just like our beloved JW's will do???

The verse is very explict, the speaker called himself God, and also stated (in the next chapter, I believe) that he was the one responsible for the destruction of Pharaoh and his men regarding the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea business. The only problem is for Witnesses is, even in their NWT, throughout the book of Exodus, Jehovah is the one labeled as responsible for it...but in Isa, Jesus (as you admitted) is taking responsibility for it.

So which is it, Jesus or Jehovah? Hmmmm.

6. Hmmmm. Smells like a false dichotomy to me. The answer is both. Created beings are also referred to as Jehovah. It is this type of fallacious reasoning that has you theologically confused.

No matter how many different spins you want to put on it, you have been refuted

7. That "spin" is called parsing. Something you obviously know nothing about which is perpetuating your theological confusion. Refutation by fallacious reasoning is not a valid refutation. Hey at least you got the spelling right this time-- r-e-f-u-t-e

Looks like to me I just did.

8. A fallacious argument is not an alternate parsing of Isa 43:10. Additionally, once again, you ignored the key verb of the passage which explicitly states Christ was a CREATED God. Is there a reason why you continue to dodge this term?

"The lesser God". That is how so many different denominations and sects of Christianity start...with false doctrine. Again, put the word "other" in the same context of John 1:3 as Col 1:15-17. The word is not in either, and I will keep stressing that point.

9. The term "other" is unnecessary to determine The Father is a greater God than Jesus:

Joh 14:28 You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.​

Logic would dictate Christ would be the lesser.

Non-biblical.

10. Very biblical:

Joh 1:2-3 He [Christ] existed in the beginning with God [The Father]. 3 God [The Father] created everything through Him [Christ], and nothing was created except through Him [Christ]. (NLT)

The Trinitarian view is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons that share the same Deity/Nature. They are all co-eternal, and they all possess the maximally great properties of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence. A biblcal case can be made for it all.

11. Isa 43:10-11 specifically states one "God" was created. Hence the trinity falls like a house of cards. Interesting how you ignore the verb "created" in Isa 43:10-11 Care to finally comment on the how Christ can be created and still be part of the co-eternal trinity?

Phil 2:5-9 (one of my favorites) state that Jesus had to give up what he had in order to take that second-ranking that you are referring to. If he had to give it up in order to be in second place, then what was he before he gave it up?? FIRST PLACE.

12. One of my favorites too. He gave up what He had in order to become "human" (vs 7). He was already a lesser ranking God by virtue of being created, as Isa 43:10-11 points out. And I'm still waiting for comment on the term verb "formed/created" in Isa 43:10. Either put up or shut up, CW.

Trust me, the feeling is very mutual. For you to claim that you aren't a JW, there are many similarities between you and them...if it looks like a duck...well, you know the rest

13. Now you are implying that I am lying. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. You let the bible speak for itself? But you implied you don't need the bible to interpret itself because your trinitarian argument is independent of translations and the ancient biblical languages:

Looks like another contradiction. How many is that so far- three or four? I gave you a fair warning. The longer we continue the more contradictions I will expose.

LOL. You are a funny man, james. First off, my argument for the Trinity is based on one key premise that everyone that is a believer in Christ agrees with, and that is the fact that Jesus committed no sin while on earth. As long as that key premise is agreed upon (and practically a given), then my case is made.

You see how that works? That is indepedent of any translation, version, interpretation, presupposition, and everything else.

Oh and btw, even with this argument, I am STILL letting the bible speak for itself...and the great thing about the argument is it is something that everyone agrees on.

2. This point refers to the term prototokos not "other". You've already accepted the validity of prototokos meaning first created. Now you are backtracking?

We started off talking about whether "other" is a word that should have been implemented in the context. You argued that it should, based on your understanding of prototokos. I am saying that it shouldn't, based on the fact that the author didn't put it in there, and the fact that it doesn't harmonize with the dozens of trinity proof texts that we currently have.

3. But you said in point 1 you don't need the bible to make your case?? You really are confused.

Reading comprehension is important, james. I didn't say I don't "need the bible to make my case"...I said I "let the bible speak for itself" and by doing that I can make a biblical case for the Trinity.

4. That is not my problem. That is the NWT's problem, which I do not use. The versions I study do not have the term, yet I was still able to prove Christ was created. Besides, you said yourself it is common sense that Christ could not create Himself so at the end of the day, the term's appearance is inconsequential.

Well, the conversation originally started when I was stating to a JW (Pegg) about how, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), that the word "other" is unjustifiably placed in the context of Col 1:15-17. Then you jumped in to the conversation and basically implied that "even though the word isn't in there, the implementation is justified based on the Greek meaning of prototokos". And then it carried on from there.

That is why I keep stressing that a case has been made for both parties, but I base my interpretation not on the translation of that particular scripture, but the totality of all the trinity proof texts, plus my own independent argument that transcends these controversial verses.

5. Of course it does. It was biblical to the translators from the translations I posted that use the indefinite article "a" in John 1:1 (and none were the NWT). Besides, the definite article "the" is used to specifically identify the Father in John 1:1 but no article is used to identify the Son.

Um, james...John 1:1 states "In the beginning was [the] Word, and [the] Word was with God...and [the] Word was God".

How do we know who [the] word is? Because in verse John 1:14 it states "[The] Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us".

So the definite article [the] is used to specifically indentify the SON in John 1:1, not the FATHER. So what are you talking about here? I don't know.

If there is no distinction between the two, as trinitarians propose, why is the definite article missing in identifying Christ? I'll tell you why, because The Father is "the" One True God and Christ is just "God" or "a" God. For example, if Mr Smith has a firstborn son, his son becomes "a" Smith and is simply called Mr. Smith. Likewise, The Father (God) created a firstborn Son as "a" God and is frequently referred to as "God".

Tell ya what, james...give me an exact quote of John 1:1.

6. Hmmmm. Smells like a false dichotomy to me. The answer is both. Created beings are also referred to as Jehovah. It is this type of fallacious reasoning that has you theologically confused.

Wow. Freakin wow. With all due respect, james, with that kind of reasoning, you are probably worse than JW's. And that is saying A LOT hahahahaha

7. That "spin" is called parsing. Something you obviously know nothing about which is perpetuating your theological confusion. Refutation by fallacious reasoning is not a valid refutation. Hey at least you got the spelling right this time-- r-e-f-u-t-e

I had meant to say "refute", but it came out as "rebuke". Small thing to a giant.

8. A fallacious argument is not an alternate parsing of Isa 43:10. Additionally, once again, you ignored the key verb of the passage which explicitly states Christ was a CREATED God. Is there a reason why you continue to dodge this term?

Scripture has to interpret scripture!! Isa 44:8 states "You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Again, even you admit that this is Jesus speaking, and he is asking a question...so if he is asking "Is there any God besides me"...that would be foolish since we know the answer to the question is YES, there is a God besides you...YAHWEH...but he said he doesn't know any God besides him.

So how could he be "formed" by a God greater than him, yet make the statement that there he knows no God besides him? Makes no sense. That is why the word "formed" may be a translation issue, because he certainly wasn't implying that he was created otherwise he would be basically BLASPHEMING by calling himself God in the following verses and not acknowledging YAHWEH in light of this.

Makes no sense.

9. The term "other" is unnecessary to determine The Father is a greater God than Jesus:

Joh 14:28 You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.
​

Logic would dictate Christ would be the lesser.

Greater by position/rank. Again, Phil 2:5-9 already tells us why Jesus said this, because he lowered his position and became a subordinate to the Father, thus, the father became greater than he.

10. Very biblical:

Joh 1:2-3 He [Christ] existed in the beginning with God [The Father]. 3 God [The Father] created everything through Him [Christ], and nothing was created except through Him [Christ]. (NLT)

Hmmm, God created everything through him? Don't know where you got that from...that isn't in my bible.

11. Isa 43:10-11 specifically states one "God" was created. Hence the trinity falls like a house of cards. Interesting how you ignore the verb "created" in Isa 43:10-11 Care to finally comment on the how Christ can be created and still be part of the co-eternal trinity?

Oh, I did that? I thought I did an excellent job of r-e-f-u-t-i-n-g it.:yes:

12. One of my favorites too. He gave up what He had in order to become "human" (vs 7).

It says that first he had to take the "form of a servant/", in addition to becoming human. Servantship is a state or condition...so if he had to TAKE THE FORM of a servant, then apparently he couldn't have been a servant prior, otherwise, he wouldnt have had to take the form of something that he always was...and on your view, he was created by God from the very beginning and was always in subordination to the Father...if that is the case, why would he have to take the form of a servant.

Second, whether he was human or not, he would have still been a servant of his Father regardless of what his manifestation was. So if he had to get in a "condition/state" of servantship meant that prior to this, he wasn't a servant, which completely demolishes your entire case.

He was already a lesser ranking God by virtue of being created, as Isa 43:10-11 points out.

And I'm still waiting for comment on the term verb "formed/created" in Isa 43:10. Either put up or shut up, CW.

Oh, but I did :yes:

13. Now you are implying that I am lying. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures

You are a JW, you just don't know it yet lol.

 

[james2ko]

First off, my argument for the Trinity is based on one key premise that everyone that is a believer in Christ agrees with, and that is the fact that Jesus committed no sin while on earth. As long as that key premise is agreed upon (and practically a given), then my case is made. You see how that works? That is indepedent of any translation, version, interpretation, presupposition, and everything else. Oh and btw, even with this argument, I am STILL letting the bible speak for itself...and the great thing about the argument is it is something that everyone agrees on.

1. Your position is not independent of scripture because without it, the key premise-- that He was sinless to begin with-- would not have been disclosed to you . So you see how that works? Not only did you contradict yourself, but you are engaged in a self-refuting fallacy! Your proposition, that every Christian agrees Christ was sinless basically proves the trinity, is false. If it were true, every Christian would be a trinitarian.

LOL. You are a funny man, james.

2. I'll take funny over contradictory and fallacious any day.

Reading comprehension is important, james. I didn't say I don't "need the bible to make my case"...I said I "let the bible speak for itself" and by doing that I can make a biblical case for the Trinity.

3. Oh I comprehend very well. You said:

I have an argument for the Trinity that is independent of biblical translations or versions, and as long as this is the case, then Hebrew, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, or any other ancient transcripts are irrelevant.

And I explained how this is a contradiction and fallacy because you are not letting the bible speak for itself. It's more like you are speaking on behalf of the bible. At the very least, this exposes your false reasoning and thinking.

Well, the conversation originally started when I was stating to a JW (Pegg) about how, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), that the word "other" is unjustifiably placed in the context of Col 1:15-17. Then you jumped in to the conversation and basically implied that "even though the word isn't in there, the implementation is justified based on the Greek meaning of prototokos". And then it carried on from there. That is why I keep stressing that a case has been made for both parties, but I base my interpretation not on the translation of that particular scripture, but the totality of all the trinity proof texts, plus my own independent argument that transcends these controversial verses.

4. That was a long winded, "Yes James, it's inconsequential".

Um, james...John 1:1 states "In the beginning was [the] Word, and [the] Word was with God...and [the] Word was God".How do we know who [the] word is? Because in verse John 1:14 it states "[The] Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us". So the definite article [the] is used to specifically indentify the SON in John 1:1, not the FATHER. So what are you talking about here? I don't know.

5. Um, CW. Let some of the respected trinitiarian scholars, who I'm sure know much more about the ancient languages than we do tell it like it is:

W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.

C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.

Murray J. Harris - "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Robert Young - "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" -Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.​

W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? For the same reasons you are--doctrinal bias!

Doesn't really matter, because as I said, propoderance of the evidence.

6. So you accept its meaning but you reject the interpretation Christ was created because of your trinitarian bias toward the preponderance of the evidence. Just look at the bright side, you are not alone as some of Christianity's most respected Scholars are in the same boat.:yes:

Tell ya what, james...give me an exact quote of John 1:1.

7. Be glad to:

In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with the God, and a God was the Word. (The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, utilizing Vatican Manuscripts, by Benjamin Wilson).​

Wow. Freakin wow. With all due respect, james, with that kind of reasoning, you are probably worse than JW's. And that is saying A LOT hahahahaha

8. So what you are saying in the vernacular is that there are no created beings referred to as YHVH in the OT? I suggest you do some research before answering this one.

I had meant to say "refute", but it came out as "rebuke". Small thing to a giant.

9. Thanks for the compliment

 

[james2ko]

Scripture has to interpret scripture!! Isa 44:8 states "You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."Again, even you admit that this is Jesus speaking, and he is asking a question...so if he is asking "Is there any God besides me"...that would be foolish since we know the answer to the question is YES, there is a God besides you...YAHWEH...but he said he doesn't know any God besides him. So how could he be "formed" by a God greater than him, yet make the statement that there he knows no God besides him? Makes no sense. because he certainly wasn't implying that he was created otherwise he would be basically BLASPHEMING by calling himself God in the following verses and not acknowledging YAHWEH in light of this. Makes no sense.

11. It makes no sense because it is another self-refuting argument (you really like those ). Christ in no way would blaspheme His Father. That would be sin, thus refuting the trinity--your own argument. That fact alone should have signaled to you that is not what Christ meant. In this context, Christ is emphasizing He should be Israel's only God/Rock-refuge, and He knows of no other God they could take refuge in or help them like He can. Think of it as a human dad telling his biological son (Israel was Christ's figurative son-Ex 4:22), "I don't know of any other dad that is going to love you and care for you like I would". Is the dad (Christ) disrespecting his father--the child's grandfather-- (Christ's Father) by saying this? Of course not, yet that is what your argument proposes.

That is why the word "formed" may be a translation issue,

12. There is no translation issue as the original language was consulted. The Hebrew verb is in the third person, nifal stem which gives it a creation nuance. Meaning the subject (Christ) is admitting to being created by a third party. You see how that works? That is exegesis. What you are engaged in is gross eisegesis--reading into a passage your own presuppositions and ideology, as evidenced by point 5 and 6.

Greater by position/rank. Again, Phil 2:5-9 already tells us why Jesus said this, because he lowered his position and became a subordinate to the Father, thus, the father became greater than he.

13. The term "greater" [meizon-G3187] can also mean "older":

Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder [meizon-G3187] shall serve the younger.​

If you let scripture interpret scripture, as you propose, than we have to admit Christ was not only implying He was a lesser God in rank and position but also that the Father was "older" than He was. Which makes sense in light of the scriptures that state He was created! Just as a human father is always "older" than his firstborn or any of his sons, so is God The Father older than all of His, including His Firstborn!

Hmmm, God created everything through him? Don't know where you got that from...that isn't in my bible.

14. Only using one bible for your interpretations? That puts you in the "JW" league. And I don't mean John Wayne ...............It's actually in plenty of mine:

NRSV | ‎Jn 1:3
All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being

NKJV
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

NIV
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Weymouth New Testament
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing that exists came into being.

English Standard Version
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

New American Standard Bible
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

International Standard Version
Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

American Standard Version
All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

Young's Literal Translation
all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.​

Oh, I did that? I thought I did an excellent job of r-e-f-u-t-i-n-g it.

15. Eisegetically speaking, :yes: Exegetically speaking, :no:

It says that first he had to take the "form of a servant/", in addition to becoming human. Servantship is a state or condition... otherwise, he wouldnt have had to take the form of something that he always was...and on your view, he was created by God from the very beginning and was always in subordination to the Father...if that is the case, why would he have to take the form of a servant.Second, whether he was human or not, he would have still been a servant of his Father regardless of what his manifestation was. So if he had to get in a "condition/state" of servantship meant that prior to this, he wasn't a servant, which completely demolishes your entire case.

16. The Greek term used for "form" is "morphe-G3444" of which our English term "anthropomorphic" is derived, and neither the English or Greek ever imply a state or condition, but an appearance or shape. Notice Thayer's definitions of morphe; 1. the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision 2. external appearance. In other words, Christ emptied [ekenosen] Himself of His divine body "morphe-G3444" (vs 6) to take on the "morphe" of a human one as a servant (vs 7). This evidence shatters the foundation of your case. You see what happens when you ignore the original languages?

so if he had to TAKE THE FORM of a servant, then apparently he couldn't have been a servant prior,

17. Another false dichotomy? You may want to look up the term so you can at least make your points logically. He was also a servant of a different "form"--Spirit form. Man, you're just one lean, mean, fallacy machine.:beach:

Oh, but I did

18. :no: You talked about the content of the verse and pointed to another verse (Isa 44:8-which was refuted) as your proof text against it. But nowhere did you address the verb "formed" and its parsing to mean something other than what it prescribes--Christ as a created God.

You are a JW, you just don't know it yet lol.

19. Or I could be a Unitarian, Messianic Jew, Church of God group, or one of many other Christian groups that believe Christ was created. BTW...None, that I know of, use only one translation to establish doctrine as you seem to do. I guess that makes YOU the JW--Jehovah Wannabee-- you just don't know it yet

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. Your position is not independent of scripture because without it, the key premise-- that He was sinless to begin with-- would not have been disclosed to you . So you see how that works? Not only did you contradict yourself, but you are engaged in a self-refuting fallacy! Your proposition, that every Christian agrees Christ was sinless basically proves the trinity, is false. If it were true, every Christian would be a trinitarian.

My point is, of all of the denominations/sects of Christianity, every single one agrees that Jesus Christ was sinless...so it doesn't matter what translation or version of the bible you read, you will draw that conclusion..which isn't necessarily the case in other regards, such as the rendering of John 1:1 and Col 1:15-17, at which it DOES matter which translation/version you read.

See how that works?

2. I'll take funny over contradictory and fallacious any day.

What I meant was...I find it "funny" that your arguments are "contradictory and "fallacious".

Not quite out of the woods like you thought, huh?

And I explained how this is a contradiction and fallacy because you are not letting the bible speak for itself. It's more like you are speaking on behalf of the bible. At the very least, this exposes your false reasoning and thinking.

I am letting the bible speak for itself. My whole beef was the word [other] that was implemented into the text. It is not in the earliest manuscripts that we have, yet it was added into the text by a denomination of Christianity (if one considers them Christians) who just HAPPENS to believe that Jesus created all "other" things to begin with.

That is making the bible fit your presuppositions, instead of making your presuppositions fit the bible.

4. That was a long winded, "Yes James, it's inconsequential".

"Yes James, what you said about "prototokos" is inconsequential"

5. Um, CW. Let some of the respected trinitiarian scholars, who I'm sure know much more about the ancient languages than we do tell it like it is:

W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.

C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.

Murray J. Harris - "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Robert Young - "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" -Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.
​

W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? For the same reasons you are--doctrinal bias!

I like the fact that you really think you are doing something lol, and you WOULD be doing something if it weren't for the fact that trinitarians believe that Jesus is "a" God too. We also believe that the Father is "a" God. God is technically "a" God", right? Hahahaha correct me if I am wrong. The only issue with the definite article of of John 1:1 is the fact that Witnesses implement the definite article as a way to make Jesus not equal with God...as they believe that he is a "lesser" God, which is why if the verse was just referring to the Father, the definite article would certainly not be in the text.

6. So you accept its meaning but you reject the interpretation Christ was created because of your trinitarian bias toward the preponderance of the evidence. Just look at the bright side, you are not alone as some of Christianity's most respected Scholars are in the same boat.:yes:

I can't just ignore all of the evidence that is leading me to believe in a biblical Trinity. Apparently, with your 3 measely "anti-trinity" scriptures, you are doing just that, ignoring all of the biblical evidence that points towards the opposite direction of your interpretation.

7. Be glad to:

In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with the God, and a God was the Word. (The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, utilizing Vatican Manuscripts, by Benjamin Wilson).
​

So, lets move right along...in what way is Jesus a "God". In what way?

8. So what you are saying in the vernacular is that there are no created beings referred to as YHVH in the OT? I suggest you do some research before answering this one.

Obviously we are talking about two different senses here. Aren't you the one that love touting the Isa 43:10-11 scripture where Jesus states that there aren't any God's "formed" before him or after him? Now take that in light of these created beings (assuming you are particularly talking about Ps 82:1-6)...would mean that Jesus was lying about no gods being "formed" after him...but you wouldn't call Jesus a liar, would you?

So again, obviously YHVH used in terms of created being are not the same as when it refers to the Father and the Son.

9. Thanks for the compliment

LOL

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

11. It makes no sense because it is another self-refuting argument (you really like those ). Christ in no way would blaspheme His Father. That would be sin, thus refuting the trinity--your own argument. That fact alone should have signaled to you that is not what Christ meant.

In this context, Christ is emphasizing He should be Israel's only God/Rock-refuge, and He knows of no other God they could take refuge in or help them like He can. Think of it as a human dad telling his biological son (Israel was Christ's figurative son-Ex 4:22), "I don't know of any other dad that is going to love you and care for you like I would". Is the dad (Christ) disrespecting his father--the child's grandfather-- (Christ's Father) by saying this? Of course not, yet that is what your argument proposes.

Obviously, I know that is not what Christ meant, it is just that based on what YOU are saying, I can't help but take it that way.

But then again, you still have problems..because in verse 12 it states "You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, that I am God".

Christ is speaking there, right? Hmmm...it would seem as if that would have been a perfect time to put that definite article in there, James :yes: because it is looking reallll ugly.

See, once you admit that this is Jesus speaking in 10-11, then you have to subject yourself to everything the "subject" of the entire chapter is saying...and throughout it he claimed that he is "God", the "Lord", the "Savior" "Holy One", "Isreal's Creator"..hmmmmm.

12. There is no translation issue as the original language was consulted. The Hebrew verb is in the third person, nifal stem which gives it a creation nuance. Meaning the subject (Christ) is admitting to being created by a third party. You see how that works? That is exegesis. What you are engaged in is gross eisegesis--reading into a passage your own presuppositions and ideology, as evidenced by point 5 and 6.

Then back to my original question...if Jesus was created by the Father, and he is a lesser god..in what way is Jesus a god? What does being a god entail?

13. The term "greater" [meizon-G3187] can also mean "older":Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder [meizon-G3187] shall serve the younger.

That is one of the most wackiest interpretations I've ever seen. If it says "the elder shall serve the younger", then what does being older have to do with being greater, if the older is serving the younger??? Makes no sense.

If you let scripture interpret scripture, as you propose, than we have to admit Christ was not only implying He was a lesser God in rank and position but also that the Father was "older" than He was. Which makes sense in light of the scriptures that state He was created! Just as a human father is always "older" than his firstborn or any of his sons, so is God The Father older than all of His, including His Firstborn!

I don't buy what you said in the beginning of this wacky interpretation, so of course anything that was said after that would also qualify as "wacky".

14. Only using one bible for your interpretations? That puts you in the "JW" league. And I don't mean John Wayne ...............It's actually in plenty of mine:

NRSV | ‎Jn 1:3
All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being

NKJV
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

NIV
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Weymouth New Testament
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing that exists came into being.

English Standard Version
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

New American Standard Bible
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

International Standard Version
Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

American Standard Version
All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

Young's Literal Translation
all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.
​

​

Completely missed the point.

16. The Greek term used for "form" is "morphe-G3444" of which our English term "anthropomorphic" is derived, and neither the English or Greek ever imply a state or condition, but an appearance or shape. Notice Thayer's definitions of morphe; 1. the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision 2. external appearance. In other words, Christ emptied [ekenosen] Himself of His divine body "morphe-G3444" (vs 6) to take on the "morphe" of a human one as a servant (vs 7). This evidence shatters the foundation of your case. You see what happens when you ignore the original languages?

That is bogus!!! Angels in heaven are servants of God as well, and even if an angel comes to earth in the form of a dog to serve Gods purpose, that would not make him any less of a servant than he would have been while in spiritual form in heaven. The servantship doesn't change, it is the manifestation that changes..but the state/condition of a servant doesn't change at all. If that were the case, then why make the distinction at all? Second, it states that Christ "made himself" nothing...how did he make himself nothing? By taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. If by becoming a human servant, he had to make himself NOTHING, then before he made himself NOTHING, he could not have been a human servant.

So basically, you are saying that he wasn't a servant before he was made in to human likeness?

17. Another false dichotomy? You may want to look up the term so you can at least make your points logically. He was also a servant of a different "form"--Spirit form.

LOL it doesn't matter what form of a servant he was, he was still a servant.

Man, you're just one lean, mean, fallacy machine.:beach:

Me? Have you read your own posts?

18. :no: You talked about the content of the verse and pointed to another verse (Isa 44:8-which was refuted) as your proof text against it. But nowhere did you address the verb "formed" and its parsing to mean something other than what it prescribes--Christ as a created God.

It can not mean in the literal sense that you would like to take it as. He said that he is God, and he knew no other God besides himself...and again, if he was created/formed as you indicates, then he would be lying, because the God that formed him would be one that he knew besides himself. So no, I cannot take that verse literally...in the literal "formed" sense.

19. Or I could be a Unitarian, Messianic Jew, Church of God group, or one of many other Christian groups that believe Christ was created. BTW...None, that I know of, use only one translation to establish doctrine as you seem to do. I guess that makes YOU the JW--Jehovah Wannabee-- you just don't know it yet

Unitarians, Messianic Jews, Church of God group...Jehovah's Witnesses...all of them are wrong, then.

 

[james2ko]

My point is, of all of the denominations/sects of Christianity, every single one agrees that Jesus Christ was sinless...so it doesn't matter what translation or version of the bible you read, you will draw that conclusion..which isn't necessarily the case in other regards, such as the rendering of John 1:1 and Col 1:15-17, at which it DOES matter which translation/version you read.
See how that works?

1. The only thing I see at work is your fallacious logic. The fact that Jesus Christ was sinless in no way proves your case for the "trinity", as you proposed earlier. So it does matter because if Christ being sinless proved the trinity, then we'd all be trinitarians, hence your proposition is false. See how fallacies work?

What I meant was...I find it "funny" that your arguments are "contradictory and "fallacious".

2. Yet you have failed to point out one contradiction or fallacy in my argument. Accusations without evidence is like a barking dog who backs up every time you take a step toward them.

Me? Have you read your own posts?

3. Yes and I have yet to hear you bark out a fallacy by name. "Who let the dogs out.....whoof...whoof..whoof...whoof...whoof. "

Not quite out of the woods like you thought, huh?

4. Nope. I'm having too much fun picking apart your very weak and poor argument.

I am letting the bible speak for itself.

5. Not when you make contradictory statements like this: " I have an argument for the Trinity that is independent of biblical translations or versions, and as long as this is the case, then Hebrew, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, or any other ancient transcripts are irrelevant." So you are not allowing the bible to interpret itself. You are injecting your presupposed interpretation into the biblical text. See how contradictions work?

My whole beef was the word [other] that was implemented into the text. It is not in the earliest manuscripts that we have, yet it was added into the text by a denomination of Christianity (if one considers them Christians) who just HAPPENS to believe that Jesus created all "other" things to begin with. That is making the bible fit your presuppositions, instead of making your presuppositions fit the bible.

6. But you said it is obvious that Jesus did not create Himself, hence implying "other" is a justified rendering.

Right, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Christ was created and the bible says he created "all things", obviously, he himself wouldn't be included in those "things" that were created. If there was any situation where common sense should definitely be used, it is here. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3859450-post417.html

Thus refuting yourself yet again. You need some :help: in the logic department.

"Yes James, what you said about "prototokos" is inconsequential"

8. Which exposes your presupposed trinitarian bias and confirms that you do not allow the bible to interpret itself.

I like the fact that you really think you are doing something lol, and you WOULD be doing something if it weren't for the fact that trinitarians believe that Jesus is "a" God too. We also believe that the Father is "a" God. God is technically "a" God", right? Hahahaha correct me if I am wrong. The only issue with the definite article of of John 1:1 is the fact that Witnesses implement the definite article as a way to make Jesus not equal with God...as they believe that he is a "lesser" God, which is why if the verse was just referring to the Father, the definite article would certainly not be in the text.

9. But there are translations outside the NWT that also have the indefinite article before God. So that settles it. Based on your own words, the indefinite article before the last word of Joh 1:1 is justified. Thanks for the habit of refuting yourself.

I can't just ignore all of the evidence that is leading me to believe in a biblical Trinity. Apparently, with your 3 measely "anti-trinity" scriptures, you are doing just that, ignoring all of the biblical evidence that points towards the opposite direction of your interpretation.

10. The trinitiarian position is so weak, I have more but all I need is one (Isa 43:10-11)

So, lets move right along...in what way is Jesus a "God"In what way?

11. In the way you typed these words: "trinitarians believe that Jesus is "a" God too". Refuting yourself aaaaaaagain.

Obviously we are talking about two different senses here. Aren't you the one that love touting the Isa 43:10-11 scripture where Jesus states that there aren't any God's "formed" before him or after him? Now take that in light of these created beings (assuming you are particularly talking about Ps 82:1-6)...would mean that Jesus was lying about no gods being "formed" after him...but you wouldn't call Jesus a liar, would you?

12. No. He said : "there was no God [EL-singular] formed, Nor shall there be after Me." In other words, He is a one of a kind created God of Israel. You're "misquoting Jesus". Just like Bart Ehrman

 

[james2ko]

So again, obviously YHVH used in terms of created being are not the same as when it refers to the Father and the Son.

13. Which means there are "lesser" YHVH's than the One True YHVH. One of the lesser YHVH's is the created Son (Pro 8:22; Isa 43:10-11; Rev 3:16; Col 1:15; Joh 13:16; Joh 14:28)

Then back to my original question...if Jesus was created by the Father, and he is a lesser god..in what way is Jesus a god? What does being a god entail?

14. The answer is in your question. Classic circular reasoning--another fallacy. How many is that, I lost count . Jesus is "a" God by virtue of being created. He can also be "the" God within certain contexts ie..the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. But this does not make Him co-eternal with the Father as trinitiarians propose.

That is one of the most wackiest interpretations I've ever seen. If it says "the elder shall serve the younger", then what does being older have to do with being greater, if the older is serving the younger??? Makes no sense.

15. Makes perfect sense. You are confusing age with service. A servant can be older or younger than his master. Christ is "older"and "greater"
than us and yet He states he came to serve us (Mar 10:45). We are not older and greater than Christ yet we also serve Him. He also serves someone "older" than Him--The Father.

I don't buy what you said in the beginning of this wacky interpretation, so of course anything that was said after that would also qualify as "wacky".

16. Appeal to ridicule? Yes. You guessed it--another fallacy. You are on one "fallacious" roll.

Completely missed the point.

17. I think its more like I completely refuted it

That is bogus!!! Angels in heaven are servants of God as well, and even if an angel comes to earth in the form of a dog to serve Gods purpose, that would not make him any less of a servant than he would have been while in spiritual form in heaven. The servantship doesn't change, it is the manifestation that changes..but the state/condition of a servant doesn't change at all. If that were the case, then why make the distinction at all? Second, it states that Christ "made himself" nothing...how did he make himself nothing? By taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. If by becoming a human servant, he had to make himself NOTHING,

18. That is precisely my point. Morphe has nothing to do with a state or condition of servant hood, but of manifestation. But it doesn't negate the fact Christ was His Father's servant in spirit and human form.

So basically, you are saying that he wasn't a servant before he was made in to human likeness?

19. No. I am saying that Christ was a servant of the Father in a spirit body (Php 2:6) with great glory (Joh 17:5). He "emptied" Himself of that spirit body and glory to become a puny human servant of God and mankind.

LOL it doesn't matter what form of a servant he was,

20. That's the problem. Nothing seems to matter much unless it proves the trinity. This attitude is reflected in your poor logic and exegesis of the text.

he was still a servant.

21. Precisely

It can not mean in the literal sense that you would like to take it as. He said that he is God, and he knew no other God besides himself...and again, if he was created/formed as you indicates, then he would be lying, because the God that formed him would be one that he knew besides himself.

22. You are once again misquoting Jesus. In Isa 44:8, He asked the Israelites a question: Is there a God besides me? Then He answered His own question; No! There is no other Rock—not one!". So you see he wasn't negating the Father because Christ was really the only God, referred to as their Rock, the Israelites ever had!

Deu 32:18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you.

Isa 44:2 Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you: 'Fear not, O Jacob My servant; And you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.​

Besides if He was lying it nullifies your trinity which negates your interpretation of that text and makes it a self-refuting fallacy.

So no, I cannot take that verse literally...in the literal "formed" sense.

23. Of course you can't. I told you several posts ago you shouldn't. Correctly interpreting the passage would destroy everything you ever believed about the deity of Christ. Can't let that happen, now can we?

Unitarians, Messianic Jews, Church of God group...Jehovah's Witnesses...all of them are wrong, then.

24. You are having great difficulty proving otherwise. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you could be wrong?

Obviously, I know that is not what Christ meant, it is just that based on what YOU are saying, I can't help but take it that way. But then again, you still have problems..because in verse 12 it states "You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, that I am God". Christ is speaking there, right? Hmmm...it would seem as if that would have been a perfect time to put that definite article in there, James because it is looking reallll ugly. See, once you admit that this is Jesus speaking in 10-11, then you have to subject yourself to everything the "subject" of the entire chapter is saying...and throughout it he claimed that he is "God", the "Lord", the "Savior" "Holy One", "Isreal's Creator"..hmmmmm.

25. Perhaps that is due to the fact there is no indefinite "a" [not definite] article in the Hebrew language. LOL...You should quit while your behind; save what little credibility you have left on the forum; go study the original languages; and get back to me when you are better prepared and groomed I think anyone reading our discussion can make the clear distinction on who is informed and who is not and who made the better, more logical argument. I'll be the giant of man (your words not mine) and allow you to have the last word. Gotta walk my dog. Would you like to join us? I promise to put the leash on him instead All kidding aside. Regardless of His deity, we need to keep preaching the gospel to the world. Christ said, if they are not against us, then they are for us, right?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. The only thing I see at work is your fallacious logic.

Temper temper, batman LOL.

The fact that Jesus Christ was sinless in no way proves your case for the "trinity", as you proposed earlier.

Suckered right into a conversation about my argument...I would have preferred this subject to have its own thread, but what the heck, lets get it crackin' right now.

The fact that Jesus Christ was sinless does prove that he is God, because who but God can come on earth and live a morally perfect life. That is only the beginning of the argument, I only gave you a piece of it...I will let that marinate in that brain of yours before I take it any further.

So it does matter because if Christ being sinless proved the trinity, then we'd all be trinitarians, hence your proposition is false. See how fallacies work?

I am not sure how that follows at ALL; "We'd all be trinitarians if Christ being sinless proved the Trinity". What?

2. Yet you have failed to point out one contradiction or fallacy in my argument. Accusations without evidence is like a barking dog who backs up every time you take a step toward them.

You are committing the fallacy of "Promoting false biblical doctrine" :yes:

3. Yes and I have yet to hear you bark out a fallacy by name. "Who let the dogs out.....whoof...whoof..whoof...whoof...whoof. "

See above.

4. Nope. I'm having too much fun picking apart your very weak and poor argument.

Wait a minute, since when is failing at something considered "fun"?

5. Not when you make contradictory statements like this: " I have an argument for the Trinity that is independent of biblical translations or versions, and as long as this is the case, then Hebrew, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, or any other ancient transcripts are irrelevant." So you are not allowing the bible to interpret itself. You are injecting your presupposed interpretation into the biblical text. See how contradictions work?

I've already explained what I meant by that...and rightfully so...the point is simple; I can prove the trinity by using a biblical concept that virtually everyone agrees with. The translation itself isn't controversial, although the inference may be...but I am prepared to defend that as well so it really doesn't matter.

6. But you said it is obvious that Jesus did not create Himself, hence implying "other" is a justified rendering.

If it was justified, then the author would have inserted the word...but he didn't, therefore he didn't feel as if it needed to be in there...and if he didn't feel like it needed to be in there, then I don't feel like it need to be in there.

So what do we have here? I can either side with the inspired person who was directly chosen by Jesus Christ to preach the Word to the Gentiles...I can either side with him...or I can side with a member of a religious forum who exists 2,000 years later (you), who happens to share the same beliefs as a particular branch of Christianity that was founded by Charles Taze Russell who started an organization that changes its theology every week and made false prophecies.

Hmmmm..I think I am gonna have to go with the guy (Paul) that was chosen by Jesus Christ to preach the Word to the Gentiles....

9. But there are translations outside the NWT that also have the indefinite article before God. So that settles it. Based on your own words, the indefinite article before the last word of Joh 1:1 is justified. Thanks for the habit of refuting yourself.

The question is, was the definite article in the earliest manuscripts? If the answer is no, then the word should not be in our latest translations...however, even if the word is there, that doesn't NECESSARILY cause any damage to the Trinity doctrine.

So again, the question is; is the definite article in the earliest manuscript, and if not, what is the justification of placing the definite article in the text now? But again, as plain and obvious as John 1:1 would be without the definite article, it is not needed to biblically prove the Trinity.

10. The trinitiarian position is so weak, I have more but all I need is one (Isa 43:10-)

Which has been refuted.

11. In the way you typed these words: "trinitarians believe that Jesus is "a" God too". Refuting yourself aaaaaaagain.

Please answer my question; In what way is Jesus "a" god?

12. No. He said : "there was no God [EL-singular] formed, Nor shall there be after Me." In other words, He is a one of a kind created God of Israel. You're "misquoting Jesus". Just like Bart Ehrman

Then he followed by saying "You are my witnesses, that I am God". So please tell me why is there no definite article in that verse, but there is one in John 1:1. Makes no sense. Someone is trying to push a false theological agenda here.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

13. Which means there are "lesser" YHVH's than the One True YHVH. One of the lesser YHVH's is the created Son (Pro 8:22; Isa 43:10-11; Rev 3:16; Col 1:15; Joh 13:16; Joh 14:28)

But James, what kind of sense would that make? Any time someone says "I am the true X" that is meant to distinguish the true from the false...the real from the fake, right? But if these god's that you are talking about are actually "lesser" Gods, then they would be true "lesser" gods, right?

If it is a fact that they are lesser gods, then they are true lesser gods...which has absolutely nothing to do with power or might...if they are gods, then they are true gods...which is why the whole "One True God" things doesn't hold much weight unless the emphasis is on making the distinction between true Gods and false gods.

14. The answer is in your question. Classic circular reasoning--another fallacy. How many is that, I lost count . Jesus is "a" God by virtue of being created.

Foolishness. How the heck does being created make one a god by virtue? More false doctrine. I am telling you...all sects and demonic cults start off with stuff just like this.

He can also be "the" God within certain contexts ie..the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. But this does not make Him co-eternal with the Father as trinitiarians propose.

Ok, so can the angel Gabriel also be the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? I am just trying to see whether there is a limit to the false interpretations.

15. Makes perfect sense. You are confusing age with service. A servant can be older or younger than his master. Christ is "older"and "greater"
than us and yet He states he came to serve us (Mar 10:45). We are not older and greater than Christ yet we also serve Him. He also serves someone "older" than Him--The Father.

So thanks for making my point for me..."greater" can mean by virtue of rank or position...and things like age or might has nothing to do with anything.

16. Appeal to ridicule? Yes. You guessed it--another fallacy. You are on one "fallacious" roll.

If the shoe fits...and those shoes you are wearing makes your feet nice and comfy.

17. I think its more like I completely refuted it

False doctrines...false interpretation...false translations...false sense of refutations...just false, false false...

18. That is precisely my point. Morphe has nothing to do with a state or condition of servant hood, but of manifestation. But it doesn't negate the fact Christ was His Father's servant in spirit and human form.

Well then, there would be no point in taking the "form" of a servant...after all, what kind of "form" does a servant have? Dressing like Alice off of Brady Bunch? Alfred off of Batman? Benson? What type of "form" does a servant have? If Alice wore a Lebron James jersey (Cleveland lol), would that make her any less of a servant than if she wore her regular maid gear on the show? Absolutely not.

Some translations have "taking the NATURE of a servant", which would seem to fit the bill...angels in heaven are servants of god, but no one is claiming that they are in the "form" of servants, because servantship is a conditional state, it has no "form".

19. No. I am saying that Christ was a servant of the Father in a spirit body (Php 2:6) with great glory (Joh 17:5). He "emptied" Himself of that spirit body and glory to become a puny human servant of God and mankind.

I got that...but he was still technically in the "form" of a servant even before he emptied himself...his servantship didn't start once he left his spiritual body and became human, he was always a servant of the Father (on your view).

20. That's the problem. Nothing seems to matter much unless it proves the trinity. This attitude is reflected in your poor logic and exegesis of the text.

I said it "doesn't matter" within the context of that particular verse, which it doesnt matter...and I explained why.

21. Precisely

So if he was a servant before he became human, and he remained a servant after he became human, why are we told he had to take the FORM of something he already was??? Makes no sense...unless he WASN'T a servant in the first place.

22. You are once again misquoting Jesus. In Isa 44:8, He asked the Israelites a question: Is there a God besides me? Then He answered His own question; No! There is no other Rock—not one!". So you see he wasn't negating the Father because Christ was really the only God, referred to as their Rock, the Israelites ever had!

Deu 32:18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you.

Isa 44:2 Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you: 'Fear not, O Jacob My servant; And you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
​

Besides if He was lying it nullifies your trinity which negates your interpretation of that text and makes it a self-refuting fallacy.

The Father is a God besides him..I've yet to see an adequate response to that.

23. Of course you can't. I told you several posts ago you shouldn't. Correctly interpreting the passage would destroy everything you ever believed about the deity of Christ. Can't let that happen, now can we?

No, we can't have scriptures contradict one another, as you seem to be advocating by having one scripture contradict the other within just a few verses apart.

Oh, and BTW, it is a good thing you mentioned Isaiah, because there is just so much trinity stuff going on that it isn't funny.

Isa 45:21 "....Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Not only that, but 45:11:13, what does it say?

11 “This is what the Lord says—
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?
12 It is I who made the earth
and created mankind on it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.
13 I will raise up Cyrus[a] in my righteousness:
I will make all his ways straight.
He will rebuild my city
and set my exiles free,
but not for a price or reward,
says the Lord Almighty.”

Do you see that? At the end, it is the "LORD ALMIGHTY" that is speaking, and this is the same "Holy One" of Israel that is speaking in Isa 43:14...yet I am to interpret Isa 43:10-11 as "form" as in "created". Not at all.

24. You are having great difficulty proving otherwise. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you could be wrong?

When you or anyone else can successfully destroy all Trinity proof texts, then I will change my beliefs.

25. Perhaps that is due to the fact there is no indefinite "a" [not definite] article in the Hebrew language LOL.

Now look at what you just said...there is no indefinite article "a" in the Hebrew language, yet in John 1:1 the indefinite article is there. Well, the million dollar question is WHY IS IT THERE? And why don't translators place it in context when the Father is being referred too? Theological agenda's.

...You should quit while your behind; save what little credibility you have left on the forum; go study the original languages; and get back to me when you are better prepared and groomed

Oh I completely disagree. Throughout our discussions you have been out-classed...out-matched...and out-styled.

I think anyone reading our discussion can make the clear distinction on who is informed and who is not and who made the better, more logical argument.

And that is exactly why people don't get paid to "think".

I'll be the giant of man (your words not mine) and allow you to have the last word. Gotta walk my dog. Would you like to join us? I promise to put the leash on him instead All kidding aside. Regardless of His deity, we need to keep preaching the gospel to the world. Christ said, if they are not against us, then they are for us, right?

Good, now go to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to CALL :beach:

 

[james2ko]

I believe prototype means first of a kind. This does seem to suggest that it is the first time that God takes a people under His wing.

Sorry for the delayed response. Had to take care of a bug problem . Absolutely, most who interpret this term overlook this subtle fact. The root term [proto] most certainly reflects the first of "something" made, created, or formed. It is evident in the English language, which was partly derived from the Greek. For instance the term "protocol" has several definitions. It can mean a set of plans or procedures. Depending on the context, it can also be defined as :

an original draft, minute, or record of a document or transaction: a preliminary memorandum often formulated and signed by diplomatic negotiators as a basis for a final convention or treaty Protocol - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

The process of protonation is another one. It is defined as the process of transferring a proton so that a coordinate bond is "formed/created". When all of the passages are properly interpreted, there is no doubt Christ was The Father's first [original] created/formed [prototokos] being.

 

[Muffled]

Sorry for the delayed response. Had to take care of a bug problem . Absolutely, most who interpret this term overlook this subtle fact. The root term [proto] most certainly reflects the first of "something" made, created, or formed. It is evident in the English language, which was partly derived from the Greek. For instance the term "protocol" has several definitions. It can mean a set of plans or procedures. Depending on the context, it can also be defined as :

an original draft, minute, or record of a document or transaction: a preliminary memorandum often formulated and signed by diplomatic negotiators as a basis for a final convention or treaty Protocol - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
​

The process of protonation is another one. It is defined as the process of transferring a proton so that a coordinate bond is "formed/created". When all of the passages are properly interpreted, there is no doubt Christ was The Father's first [original] created/formed [prototokos] being.

I believe the first ctreation born in 0 AD. All other creations were not born.

 

[Nada]

There is no ZERO year.

"Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini/Common Era system usually used to number years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1."

0 (year) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JM2C]

May i just ask you guys, if Jesus was not Gods first creation, who was?

Adam in Genesis?

 

[kjw47]

Adam in Genesis?

There were already milluons upon millions of spirit beings created before Adam was.

 

[Nada]

When God was creating mankind in the Garden of Eden, God was speaking to someone when He said this,"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness," Gen 1:26 Adam was not God's first creation. Do you know who it was that God was speaking to? It was Jesus in his pre human existence.

:yes:

 

[Desert Snake]

I think you are reading it too literally. Jesus was like a Mirror facing the Sun of Reality, showing the image of God. It is like you place a Mirror facing the Sun. What do you see in it? You see the Sun. Now if we point to the Mirror with the image of Sun, and say this always existed, it is true. Therefore the Mirror (individuality of Jesus) did not exist before, but the Sun (God) always existed. That is to say, the Reality of God that was Manifested in the Mirror always existed, not the individuality of Jesus.

Another way to see this is we see how scriptures define 'existence' and 'identity'.
Because the scriptures does not define existence and identity the way normally it is defined. Let me ask you this: Do you believe John the Baptist existed on earth before He was born? According to scriptures yes. Because Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah who had returned again. But the existence of John as Elijah is related to how scriptures define identity as spiritual Qualities. However the individuality of John was different than Elijah, and therefore John did not "Literally" exist as Elijah. In the same way Jesus existed before as Moses, even as Abraham or Noah as all of them were revealers of the Word and attributes of God.

Actually you are incorrect. Jesus is not a "mirror", He was born of the Spirit, which means that He was literally 'G-d walking among us' with man attributes as well. It's the man attributes that confuse people, as He calls G-d "Father" and such, but this is because in man form, He is partially separated from Spirit form Jesus, who is the same as G-d. This is why Jesus is called the creator in Hebrews, His disciples call Him 'God', as well.