The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[Soapy]

Yes

I'd have to be blind not to see that you're not a trinitarian, and I'll take your word for it that you're not a JW. Good thing that you aren't, since you don't seem to believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus Christ are one and the same person, which is inconsistent with JW beliefs.

Ummm... I kinda think that was the idea that I said.

The body of the first Adam was made from the dust of the earth and then enlivened by the holy spirit breath of God.

Jesus is the second Adam - and the Last Adam. He, two was made from the ‘dust of the earth’, the seed of the woman, the egg of Mary. That seed was, in effect, the body of the second Adam. This ‘body’ was then overshadowed by the Holy spirit breath of God.

For this reason both the first and the second Adams are called , “[flesh] Son of God” in their own right.

‘Son of God’ in spiritual meaning is:

• “He who does the works of his Father”

This is emphasised by various verses that Jesus and scriptures details such as:

• “I only said I was the Son of God... if I am not doing the works of my Father then do not believe me!”
• “All who follow the Spirit [of God] are Sons [...] of God”
• "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.“ (Isaiah 42:1)

This latter verse uses the word, ‘Servant’, but ‘Sons would be just as adequate. A Son is as good as a servant when he is called to do what the head commands him:

• “What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.” (Galatians 4:1)

The holy angels are Spirit Sons of God because they entirely do exactly as God commands them.

The point of ‘Jesus’ is that, as he entirely dedicated his life to doing the works of his Father God, even down to dying as a sacrifice for the sins of Adam, he was rewarded in becoming the ‘Firstborn’ over creation.

Now JW and Trinitarians ‘strain at a gnat but swallow a camel’ at this term, ‘Firstborn’.

‘Firstborn’ just means:

• “The most beloved of the Father”

This is different to ‘First Born’, which is a chronological in-time physical procreation:

• ‘Adam, was first born son of God’
• ‘Adam was also the ’Firstborn’ (most beloved) of God up until Adam sinned’
• Cain, first born and firstborn of Adam, was also Firstborn until Cain Sinned
• Ishmael was firstborn and first born of Abraham until Ishmael sinned
• Esau was firstborn and first born of Isaac until Esau sinned

You can see from this that the first born always sinned and another was brought up to replace him... You know your scriptures so there’s no need fit me to outline the ‘smithed was brought up to replace him - as Firstborn!!

But just to emphasis, Adam, firstborn and first born MAN sinned and was replaced by another, the second snd last Adam, Jesus Christ... a Man just as was Adam - and God said of Jesus:

• ‘This is my Son, believe him’
• ‘This is my son in whom I am well pleased’ - as the Fathef put his Holy Spirit on Jesus as an anointing oil spirit - echoing Isaiah 42:1)
• ‘This day I have become to you a Father, and you have become to me, A Son’ (An ADOPTION DECLARATION)

So, the long and short of it is that the first Adam was to be ‘ruler over the creation of God’ if he had stayed dutiful to God... because he sinned, his place was taken away and another of a kind, a human Being, born in the same manner but who stayed sinless and dutifully loyal to the Father God, replaced the first Adam as the second and last Adam and he takes the place as ruler over creation.

It makes no sense that an angel (JW) or Almighty God (Trinity) should be one ruler over a created world when both JW and Trinity Jesus’ are originally HEAVEN DWELLING PERSONS Spirits.

Spirit are in far far far better places in Limitless boundless heaven than in a restricting physical earthly kingdom of creation.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Ummm... I kinda think that was the idea that I said.

Since you like to repeat what you say, I didn't think you'd object if I repeated what you said in my own words. If that's a problem for you, I won't do it anymore.

Spirit are in far far far better places in Limitless boundless heaven than in a restricting physical earthly kingdom of creation.

You'll get no argument on that from me, since I believe that the Cosmos is boundless.

‘Son of God’ in spiritual meaning

You're not telling me anything there that I can't believe.

The term "son of God" and the concept of "child of God" are ancient Hebrew elements. Here is my collection of those terms which I found in the Hebrew scripture:

• Deuteronomy Chapter 14:
  • You are children of the LORD your God.
• 2 Samuel, Chapter 7:
  • 8 "Further, say thus to My servant David: Thus said the LORD of Hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the flock, to be ruler of My people Israel,
  • 9 and I have been with you wherever you went, ...
  • 12 When your days are done and you lie with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own issue, and I will establish his kingship.
  • 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish his royal throne forever.
  • 14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me.
• Psalm, Chapter 2:
  • 7 Let me tell of the decree, the LORD said to me, "You are My son, I have fathered you this day.
• Psalm, Chapter 72:
  • 4 Sing to God, chant hymns to His name; extol Him who rides the clouds; the LORD is His name. Exult in His presence, the father of orphans, the champion of widows, God, in His holy habitation.
• Wisdom of Solomon
  • Chapter 1:
    • 16 But the ungodly by their words and deeds summoned death; considering him a friend, they pined away and made a covenant with him, because they are fit to belong to his company.
  • Chapter 2:
    • 1 For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, ...
      
    • 12 ‘Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.
    • 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.
    • 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
    • 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.
    • 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.
    • 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
    • 18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, He will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries
    • 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance
    • 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.’
    • 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,
    • 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hoped for the wages of holiness, nor discerned the prize for blameless souls;
    • 23 for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of His own eternity,
    • 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.

 

[firedragon]

I mean there is evidence that suggests the brain of man has gotten bigger over a million years. There is no genetic evidence that man genetically changed from apes into humans.

Okay. No evidence that man evolved from apes doesn't mean evolution is false.

 

[Soapy]

Okay. No evidence that man evolved from apes doesn't mean evolution is false.

There is a theory that links religion and science.., and I believe it.

The theory is that ‘Adam’ was not a ‘miraculous creation’ as allegorised in Genesis. Science has found links to a subspecies of homo..type animal but which is clearly not homoSapien.

It is clear - in science - that the present homo-MAN is derived from the subspecies.

Thus, the theory is that God put the ‘image of himself’ into the subspecies to create the present HomoSapien, human Being with the knowledge and attitude and nature of the almighty God.

While this is a theory, and appears to be contrary to standard concepts in dispute (Creationism vs Evolution), it appears to me to be a more valid theory.

Science is not wrong... Science deceives itself by claiming that all that it UNCOVERS of what the Almighty God has done... is its own invention.

Science gives names and praises its uncoverer with credits as though it or they invented what they uncovered and thus claim deeper that:

• ‘There is no God’

Sorry, science guys (and I’m a fan of science per se!) but it’s exactly that : ‘Sorry Science’ ideology.

You are only UNCOVERING the wonders and beauty of the almighty God. Nothing you discover and uncover or invent or design is NOT ALREADY IN NATURE... nature being a coded word for ‘Almighty Gods works’.

Yes, ‘unreligious scientist’ astounded are the incredible things they uncovered/discovered could not bring themselves to offer praises and honour to a creator so they used the word, ‘Nature’ to assign to these wonderments.

A question I always ask of evolutionists (I don’t support Creationists entirely either!) is:

• ‘Why’.‘Why did evolution come to be’?

and:

• ‘What’: ‘What is the point and purpose of an evolutionary process... What is it’s ultimate aim’?

Evolutionist can discover every little thing that could lead from one species to another - but they cannot say ‘Why’ it happened ... as in, ‘What’ is the intelligence behind its evolvement?

Of course, there is no answer in ‘Science’... Science can only say: ‘The creature decided to evolve a better ‘seeing’ system... evolve an air breathing facility because the wet climate was getting drier...’ Where did the intelligence come from to make it do that...?

Of course, the answer is in religion, in that God gave every created creature the ability to manage itself - takes minute variations over generations but the SPIRIT of the creation (Animal and Botanical!!!!) seeks ‘survival’ and ‘reproduction’... at any cost... survival of the species. You notice that even plants design defence against being eaten and against other plants ... a turf war in ultra slow motion. But not only that but it surprisingly accommodates and encourages other plants or insects or animals in order to make as certain as possible it’s own species survival and reproduction.

Science, science uncovers Gods works but denies the glory of God... simple as....

So please consider that:

• ‘Science is not wrong’

It simply:

• ‘Denies the praise, wonder, honour, and worship of the almighty creator’

 

[Soapy]

Psalm, Chapter 2:

• 7 Let me tell of the decree, the LORD said to me, "You are My son, I have fathered you this day.

The ‘fathered’ part is incorrect. The statement is an adoption declaration. God did not ‘Father’ Jesus. This is the very fault that leads trinity Italians to foolishly declare that Jesus was born from God as God’s Son ... big then also declare that Jesus was never born - after they realise that being born means being created - something they strongly deny.. See the circular recursive argument that has no exit point?

JW are not far from the truth of YHWH GOD... their fault is in declaring and portraying the Son of God as an angel...!!!

I won’t go into the issues of ‘Blood’, and the ultra stupid argument about it was a Stake or a Cross that Jesus was crucified on.

Much of the rest of JW issues are surrounding the treatment of elders, members, duties, separation of discredited members, etc, which nothing to do really with scriptures - they you try to make it so!

 

[Terry Sampson]

JW are not far from the truth of YHWH GOD

Nothing that a little humility wouldn't cure.

 

[Soapy]

Nothing that a little humility wouldn't cure.

JW are closer to the truth than Trinitarians .. but:

• True and False = False
• False and True = False
• False and False = False
• True and True = True

JW portray Jesus as an angel... but God said:

• ‘To which of the angels did God ever say... you are my son, today I have Begotten you!’
• ‘This day I have become to you a Father, and you have become to me a Son!!’
• ‘The world to come will by no means be governed by angels!’

Moreover, scriptures portrays the angel ’Satan’ as being the greatest of all the Spirit angels. He is the Steward governor over creation and sits in place awaiting the rightful king, the ruler over creation proper. Thus, he attempts to tempt Jesus to takd the Seat before time and without the trauma he snd Jesus both knew was necessary - saying:

• ‘All these kingdoms I will give you if you bow down and worship me... it is mine to give to whom I will’

Jesus, quite right refused and declared that worship should only be given to The Father, the Lord God, and only him.

So both JW and Trinitarians wrongfully declare Jesus Christ as a pre-present Being in Heaven!

Trinis try to weidle their way out of the lie by asking a stupid and illegal question:

• ‘Are you saying Jesus is just a mere man’

Naive responders appear stymied and say, ‘Of course Jesus wasn’t a mere man’.. to which the Trini laughs and slams back:

• ‘If he’s not a mere man then he must be God!!!’

They typically ask this to their enemy liars: JW’s. But note that the question is ill-formed. The divisive word, ‘mere’ is the crux point word... and the answer is:

• ‘No, Jesus is not “just a mere man. He a glorified sinless and holy man with an immortal body who is currently heavenly dwelling as a bodiless Spirit Being setting the world to rights using the power and authority given to him by the almighty God: Yhwh!’

Jesus is the ‘Last Adam’ snd ‘Adam’ means Man!!

 

[Terry Sampson]

JW are closer to the truth than Trinitarians .. but:

• True and False = False
• False and True = False
• False and False = False
• True and True = True

Ahhh, ... the True/False game. So is "closer to the truth" close enough to ensure satisfactory consequences. If not, then "closer to the truth" is no better than "not as close", is it? On the other hand, if "closer to the truth" will get them where they want to go, who decides what false things the righteous can believe and still be righteous enough to receive forgiveness and mercy?

Moreover, scriptures portrays the angel ’Satan’ as being the greatest of all the Spirit angels.

My memory is failing me. What's your source for that claim?

So both JW and Trinitarians wrongfully declare Jesus Christ as a pre-present Being in Heaven!

So they all go to hell?

‘No, Jesus is not “just a mere man. He a glorified sinless and holy man with an immortal body who is currently heavenly dwelling as a bodiless Spirit Being setting the world to rights using the power and authority given to him by the almighty God: Yhwh!’

• Jesus is ...
  • a bodiless Spirit Being
  • setting the world to rights
  • using the power and authority given to him by Almighty Yhwh.
• Yhwh is ...
  • a bodiless Spirit Being
  • setting the world to rights
  • by his own power and authority which He shares with Jesus.
• What the Father does, the Son does.
• Like Father, like Son.

Excuse me while I bow down to the Son and to the Father.

 

[Soapy]

Ahhh, ... the True/False game. So is "closer to the truth" close enough to ensure satisfactory consequences. If not, then "closer to the truth" no better than "not as close", does it? On the other hand, if "closer to the truth" will get them where they want to go, who decides what false things the righteous can believe and still be righteous enough to receive forgiveness and mercy?

You are closer to the truth but not exact on it. The judgement is left to Jesus as he sits as judge at the end of time. We are told not to judge our fellow man BUT that judging is ‘not to condemnation’.
We all judge and must judge:

• We judge if an opposite person we meet is good in our eyes for a partner - but we do not condemn them if they are not!
• we judge if it’s safe to criss the road - but we don’t condemn the traffic if it’s not!
  
• We judge if an ideology aspires to the belief system it claims to represent - but we don’t condemn it

Each belief system in Christianity carries a truth ...somewhere within it... trinity, even, teaches love, honour, prayer, praise, worship of God. It’s problem is it raises teaches that the worship is towards three persons even if it claims that the three such persons are ‘one god’...

The Trinitarians hide behind claiming their God is ‘one god’ and thus they are claiming ‘Monotheism’ - even though the three are each separate RULERS with separate RANKS and separate powers and authorities - Nothing like the CO-EQUALITY that their credal belief states...

The trinitarian refuses to understand that the word ’God’ actually means, ‘Ruler’. So, laying it out straight and direct, trinity states that:

• There are three rulers : Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
• Each is Ranked and NOT Co-Equal such that there is a heirachial order starting with Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit
  
• Though we believe that each is ‘one inseparable God’, the Son separated himself and became man (thus destroying the integrity of the claim of an inseparable one god)
• The son, as man, lived as man, suffered as man, did mighty works by the power of the Father (not by himself) and died as a man - as all in mankind who die, died
• The son was raised up by the Father and was glorified by him which would be unnecessary if the sin was already god as the same as the Father
• The son was given power that he would not nee to be given if her were the god as of the Father
• We confess that we express Father and son as a trinity proof... which destroys the integrity of infant arithmetic...
  
• We confess that the fathers Holy Spirit is a separate god-person despite knowing by our own ideology that it is an outgoing, an emanation from the father
• We confess that Jesus states that this Holy Spirit is less than the son because it ‘receives from the sin’ which, if it were god would not be needed
• We also confess that the son hands power back to the father which cannot make the son god as the Father
  
• And we confess that the sin cannot be a co-equal god-person in fullness as the Father seeing that the son takes the seat in rulership over the created world... in direct disbelief seeing that as God the son rules over the limitless kingdom of heaven... a kingdom of which creation is but a minute part. Thus the rulership of the son wold constitute a DEMOTION OF RULERSHIP
• We conclude and confess that seeing that the rulership over creation is a reward, it can only be that one from below if brought up high to acquire such... and even if the son were a downgraded part of god as man, it is as man that the son takes his seat in rulership.. which still constitutes a demotion whichever way it’s looked at

My memory is failing me. What's your source for that claim?

Allegorical evidence from scriptures. It always amazes me that persons who believe in a claim of truth are foreigners to it when they wish to dispute the very truth they claim to claim of themselves... like Jesus being an angel yet it’s clear that Almighty God the Father stayed that no angel did he ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’. Amazing!

So they all go to hell?

mYou are asking me to judge to this condemnation level? You are a tempter! This can only be because you see you are wrong elsewhere. Sorry, I’m not blind to misdirections!

• Jesus is ...
  • a bodiless Spirit Being
  • setting the world to rights
  • using the power and authority given to him by Almighty Yhwh.
• Yhwh is ...
  • a bodiless Spirit Being
  • setting the world to rights
  • by his own power and authority which He shares with Jesus.
• What the Father does, the Son does.
• Like Father, like Son.

Excuse me while I bow down to the Son and to the Father.

Bow down to the Son is at the end of time as the son takes his seat as king over creation. Revelation tells us that all knees in creation will bow to Jesus - as it’s ruler.

God rewards the son with the rulership... he become its king - and knees are bowed to kings in reverence and honor and praise and glory.

Revelation states that both the Father AND the Son receive Praise, honor, and glory...

But then notice that it is ONLY the Father who receives WORSHIP.

Read carefully and see this truth: ‘He that sits on the throne’ is the only one who receives WORSHIP.

Praise, honor, and Glorification... ARE NOT WORSHIP!!! The false ideology of them as worship is a trinitarian Triste. They say this to turn the heads of their naive congregation, misleading them into further and deeper false ideology.

JW... stop saying Jesus was an angel. Most of what else you say is nearer the truth than you know.... start getting closer by stopping the idolatrous idea that an angel became the human son in God.

Jesus is a created being as the SECOND Adam: Born holy and sinless just as the FIRST ADAM.

What is it you cannot see why scriptures calls Adam, ‘Son of God’ and ‘image of God’.. yet you see Jesus called ‘Last Adam’ and ‘Son of God’ but you don’t believe the last Adam is a direct replacement for the first...

The first sins and is removed to be replaced as FIRSTBORN (most beloved of the father) by a another:

• Cain -> Seth
• Ishmael -> Isaac
• Esau -> Jacob
• !!??!! -> David
• !!??!! -> Solomon
• ADAM -> Jesus

(The !!??!! is because I’m writing absolutely out of memory and it’s 02:31 (a.m.!) - I’ve posted this list many times before but no one sees any significance in it.., sad to say as they would realise the scriptures speaks deeper and wider than they imagine!! The missing persons are easily looked up... and, there are more than listed. For instance:

• The Jews -> (All nations and people - Gentiles)

That is a hefty one since Jews still to this day believe they are God’s ‘Firstborn’ nation. Yet Jesus says they sinned by not receiving him and he gave the love of the Father to ALL NATIONS and people who can’t to the Father through himself... kick in the teeth, eh!!!

 

[Terry Sampson]

You are asking me to judge to this condemnation level?

Silly kid, ... I didn't ask you to judge. I asked you a question that you would have answered if you had already judged. If you can't judge, just say so, ... or don't.

 

[Terry Sampson]

JW... stop saying Jesus was an angel. Most of what else you say is nearer the truth than you know.... start getting closer by stopping the idolatrous idea that an angel became the human son in God.

I hope you're not talking to me. I ain't a JW.

 

[cataway]

I hope you're not talking to me. I ain't a JW.

the angels, are they sons of God ? we know there are sons of God . one of the same?

 

[Soapy]

the angels, are they sons of God ? we know there are sons of God . one of the same?

Cataway, I’m thinking you are not reading what is being written.

‘Son of God’ means, ‘He who does the works of the Father’... and so:

• “All who follow the Spirit [of the Father] are [Sons] of the Father”

((I added and modified some parts to give a single rendering.. if you don’t like it then stick to the original because it is the same meaning))

Jesus claimed he was the Son of God because he was doing the works of the Father. This, he said, in his denial of the Jews who wrongfully claimed he called himself ‘Gods by virtue of being ‘Son of God’.

This false claim from the Jews came from an unsubstantiated belief that I cannot get an answer for from anyone... it is that:

• ‘A son is equal to his Father’

Thus, the Jews believed Jesus was calling himself ‘Almighty God’ because he called almighty God, his Father.

The Jews (according to the trinitarian rendering) claimed Jesus was saying he was ‘EQUAL TO GOD’...

My mind goes crazy mad with unbelief when I read such things... no one and nothing IS something because it is EQUAL to that something!!! There is no such nonsense except in trinity !!!!

Write me a sentence that makes that assertion... never, you can never do so (apologies... it’s ‘you’ plural!!)

The first man, Adam, was made in the image of God, the Father - his Spiritual Father - YHWH.

Luke 3:38 describes Adam as ‘Son of God’.

It is trinitarian refusal to acknowledge this verse that leads many to never read it and see the sense of it.

And why, ‘Son of God’? It is because, in the day of his creation, sinless and holy, Adam followed the spirit of his spiritual Father to the nth degree, absolutely.

Hence, he was ‘Son of God’ doing the works of his Father.

The Holy angels are called, ‘Sons of God’ for exactly the same reason: they absolutely and to every degree do the works of their creator (Spirit Father). I’m mindful not to establish the same ‘fatherhood’ to angels as to mankind because angels are not created in the image of Almighty God but only in a close setting: they have wisdom, intelligence, power, authority to act, compassion, and fearfulness (to be feared).

And Father... ‘Father’ means:

• “He who brings into being...”
• “He that gives life to...”
• “He that is the Head of ...”
• “He that commands his household...”

So, at the end of time, at the judgement seat, Jesus Christ will decide who will live and who will be destroyed eternally. He will ‘Give eternal Life‘ to whom he wills and determines as worthy...

Do not be mis-led by Trinitarians falsities. Jesus will be ‘Eternal Father’ because he will give these selected ones Eternal Life, therefore he will their ‘Eternal Father’ as prophesied in Isaiah.

 

[Soapy]

Silly kid, ... I didn't ask you to judge. I asked you a question that you would have answered if you had already judged. If you can't judge, just say so, ... or don't.

Why do you say, ‘Silly kid’.., how old are you? What, because my avatar is that of a child? Believe me, I am no child in relation to scriptures nor to yourself as a person!!! Mind YOUR MANNERS!

I pressed the point of judging as many will read into what you said as a suggestion that I was judging... maybe you do t see it because it was you who wrote it. But anyway I take opportunity to express a truth when I get it... alongside what I am asked as I see it.

The subject of judgement is one I hear everywhere being falsely stated. Jesus did not tell us not to judge ‘at all’. We absolutely do need to judge. Jesus was speaking of judging another to the point of condemning them - because, as humans, we don’t always know the full reasoning to an event and so we may judge falsely in innocence such that another person might lose their life or set them on a course of destructive behaviour.

As to what you said just now:

I asked you a question that you would have answered if you had already judged. If you can't judge, just say so, ... or don't.

im at a loss as to what you are meaning... a subject is missing in the quote!!! What are you talking about???

And by the way, there is no question I cannot answer related to what you ask... Remind me what is is your are asking me and see that I WILL ANSWER YOU!

 

[cataway]

Cataway, I’m thinking you are not reading what is being written.

‘Son of God’ means, ‘He who does the works of the Father’... and so:

• “All who follow the Spirit [of the Father] are [Sons] of the Father”

((I added and modified some parts to give a single rendering.. if you don’t like it then stick to the original because it is the same meaning))

Jesus claimed he was the Son of God because he was doing the works of the Father. This, he said, in his denial of the Jews who wrongfully claimed he called himself ‘Gods by virtue of being ‘Son of God’.

This false claim from the Jews came from an unsubstantiated belief that I cannot get an answer for from anyone... it is that:

• ‘A son is equal to his Father’

Thus, the Jews believed Jesus was calling himself ‘Almighty God’ because he called almighty God, his Father.

The Jews (according to the trinitarian rendering) claimed Jesus was saying he was ‘EQUAL TO GOD’...

My mind goes crazy mad with unbelief when I read such things... no one and nothing IS something because it is EQUAL to that something!!! There is no such nonsense except in trinity !!!!

Write me a sentence that makes that assertion... never, you can never do so (apologies... it’s ‘you’ plural!!)

The first man, Adam, was made in the image of God, the Father - his Spiritual Father - YHWH.

Luke 3:38 describes Adam as ‘Son of God’.

It is trinitarian refusal to acknowledge this verse that leads many to never read it and see the sense of it.

And why, ‘Son of God’? It is because, in the day of his creation, sinless and holy, Adam followed the spirit of his spiritual Father to the nth degree, absolutely.

Hence, he was ‘Son of God’ doing the works of his Father.

The Holy angels are called, ‘Sons of God’ for exactly the same reason: they absolutely and to every degree do the works of their creator (Spirit Father). I’m mindful not to establish the same ‘fatherhood’ to angels as to mankind because angels are not created in the image of Almighty God but only in a close setting: they have wisdom, intelligence, power, authority to act, compassion, and fearfulness (to be feared).

And Father... ‘Father’ means:

• “He who brings into being...”
• “He that gives life to...”
• “He that is the Head of ...”
• “He that commands his household...”

So, at the end of time, at the judgement seat, Jesus Christ will decide who will live and who will be destroyed eternally. He will ‘Give eternal Life‘ to whom he wills and determines as worthy...

Do not be mis-led by Trinitarians falsities. Jesus will be ‘Eternal Father’ because he will give these selected ones Eternal Life, therefore he will their ‘Eternal Father’ as prophesied in Isaiah.

you evidently did not hear what his mother said. please read the bible before you make up any stories

 

[Soapy]

you evidently did not hear what his mother said. please read the bible before you make up any stories

His mother? What on earth or in heaven are you talking about?

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. Why do you say, ‘Silly kid’..,
2. how old are you?
3. What, because my avatar is that of a child?
4. Believe me, I am no child in relation to scriptures nor to yourself as a person!!!
5. Mind YOUR MANNERS!

#1. It slipped out before I could bite my tongue.
#2. I'll be 72 this coming August. Remind me again how old you are.
#3. No. A child as young as the one in your avatar would probably be a tad bit less contentious and definitely more innocent and playful than you are.
#4. Oh, I don't doubt that you have a very high opinion of your own knowledge and theology. But, so far, the only new thing that you've taught me is that you're not a JW, but that you kind of communicate like one more often than not, and that your anti-trinitarianism is "'strident" to say the least.
#5. For a person as eager to impress as you are, allow me to suggest that you lighten up. My finger has hovered over the "ignore" button near your name more than once.

I pressed the point of judging as many will read into what you said as a suggestion that I was judging... maybe you do t see it because it was you who wrote it. But anyway I take opportunity to express a truth when I get it... alongside what I am asked as I see it.

1. That you take every opportunity that you can, within an on-line exchange to express your opinion is abundantly clear.
2. That one of your opinions is that you are closer than everybody else to knowing what is true and what is false seems to me to be clear, also.
3. That you're quick to tell me, and--from what I have seen--everybody else whether we're close to the truth but not quite on it or far from it, seems equally clear to me, also.

Given #1 through #3, I just wondered how far you'd go in expressing your opinions regarding the consequences of different folks proximity or distance from the truth that you believe you're well acquainted with. You tell me that you're ready and willing, and indeed feel obliged, to go pretty far in judging folks' proximity to the truth, but you stop short of judging anyone's proximity to eternal condemnation. That, in my opinion, tells me that you aren't a completely white-washed sepulchre, ... yet. And I'm glad to know that. But, ... in my opinion, you do seem to give quite a bit of attention to straining out gnats.

And by the way, there is no question I cannot answer related to what you ask...

Ha! Whatever other short-comings you may have, insufficient self-confidence is certainly not one of them.

im at a loss as to what you are meaning... a subject is missing in the quote!!! What are you talking about???

A trip down "memory-lane" is always useful.

JW are closer to the truth than Trinitarians .. but:

• True and False = False
• False and True = False
• False and False = False
• True and True = True

Ahhh, ... the True/False game. So is "closer to the truth" close enough to ensure satisfactory consequences. If not, then "closer to the truth" is no better than "not as close", is it? On the other hand, if "closer to the truth" will get them where they want to go, who decides what false things the righteous can believe and still be righteous enough to receive forgiveness and mercy?

So both JW and Trinitarians wrongfully declare Jesus Christ as a pre-present Being in Heaven!

So they all go to hell?

You are asking me to judge to this condemnation level? You are a tempter! This can only be because you see you are wrong elsewhere. Sorry, I’m not blind to misdirections!

I didn't ask you to judge. I asked you a question that you would have answered if you had already judged. If you can't judge, just say so, ... or don't.

 

[cataway]

His mother? What on earth or in heaven are you talking about?

Jesus had a mother . she knew who the father was. Read the Bible please

 

[Sand Dancer]

The trinity is in the belief that the father, the son and the holy spirit are one person. God. Even if it was 10 different entities it is still the one God. Thus, does that mean it's monotheism? Lets not mix this up with idolatry as many Muslims would because this question is not from an Islamic perspective but purely from Aqal or reason where if you take the Quran, have you questioned if it actually makes the trinity polytheism?

Also if one believes that Paul was a believer in the trinity as we perceive now, he also made a distinction in his usage of idolatry. For him idolatry is another sin and depicts an image worship.

Others would argue that its not monotheism because there are several entities. Though it is one God there are actually three different entities thus it becomes polytheism.

What do you perceive?

The Bible had to go from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism. It's hard to do so; when you narrow it to only one god, you have to have another entity to put the blame for evil on. I think also most prior religions had a trinity of sorts, so new religions have the burden of making the theirs at least somewhat like the old so people will be amenable to it. Voila, trinity.

 

[firedragon]

The Bible had to go from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism.

Monolatry? How do you assess that from the literature?