Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[YoursTrue]

I would submit that we only know that the scripture Bible does not use the name of God BECAUSE the books of the Scriptures were written by Hellenist Jews who may well have decided to avoid the use where IT WAS USED.

I ask, why would there be nothing about Jesus using the name of his Father since Jesus had no fear of the Jews. Only those who feared punishment refused to use God’s name… Jesus wasn’t one of those!!

Moreover, since God’s name (‘YHWH’) is written in the Torah and the Tanakh, why would anyone avoid saying it when reading from those Scriptures if they were followers of Jesus [and not of the human law]??

I am pretty sure the tetragrammaton (the four Hebrew letters for God's name) is clearly written thousands of times in the Hebrew scriptures. As you probably know, distinctions are made when translating. The J sound didn't come about in English until the past few centuries.

 

[walt]

According to what I read, it was about 2-3 centuries before Christ. So it was not ALWAYS the custom to shy away from pronouncing the name.

I found a video on YouTube Where one of the Jewish scholars that helped with the Dead Sea Scrolls says in their Jewish history writings they have a record of a Rabbi, that is Wrapped in the Torah and burn to death alive. The have Jewish history writings that explain, it was a Roman law no one is allowed to speak the name of God in the letters it is written. I believe this law was enforced around the first century.

Do you want the link to this video?

 

[YoursTrue]

I found a video on YouTube Where one of the Jewish scholars that helped with the Dead Sea Scrolls says in their Jewish history writings they have a record of a Rabbi, that is Wrapped in the Torah and burn to death alive. The have Jewish history writings that explain, it was a Roman law no one is allowed to speak the name of God in the letters it is written. I believe this law was enforced around the first century.

Do you want the link to this video?

Ok.

 

[walt]

Ok.

I don't have it right now, but I'm going to find it, it may take me a couple of hours.

 

[YoursTrue]

I found a video on YouTube Where one of the Jewish scholars that helped with the Dead Sea Scrolls says in their Jewish history writings they have a record of a Rabbi, that is Wrapped in the Torah and burn to death alive. The have Jewish history writings that explain, it was a Roman law no one is allowed to speak the name of God in the letters it is written. I believe this law was enforced around the first century.

Do you want the link to this video?

How very, very sad.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't have it right now, but I'm going to find it, it may take me a couple of hours.

Don't worry I looked up something about it on Wikipedia. Called Ten Martyrs. Very, very, very horrible.

 

[walt]

Don't worry I looked up something about it on Wikipedia. Called Ten Martyrs. Very, very, very horrible.

At that time the Roman government ruled over every country and city, and we already know in the Bible the Roman government told everybody stop speaking on the basis of Jesus name. In the Bible gives record of being thrown in prison And then put to death, for speaking on the basis of Jesus name. Okay I will not bother with the video We don't need it.

Acts 4:18

King James Version
18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.​

 

[walt]

How very, very sad.

Not only did they kill the the poor Rabbi, The Roman Government sold his daughter into prostitution.

 

[YoursTrue]

At that time the Roman government ruled over every country and city, and we already know in the Bible the Roman government told everybody stop speaking on the basis of Jesus name. In the Bible gives record of being thrown in prison And then put to death, for speaking on the basis of Jesus name. Okay I will not bother with the video We don't need it.

Acts 4:18​

​

King James Version​

18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.​

Jesus warned them before the temple was torn apart. That's partially how he got in trouble. Interestingly when he was killed and resurrected the temple remained intact until 70 CE when the Romans destroyed the temple and looted its contents.

 

[walt]

Jesus warned them before the temple was torn apart. That's partially how he got in trouble. Interestingly when he was killed and resurrected the temple remained intact until 70 CE when the Romans destroyed the temple and looted its contents.

The record is in our own history the Roman governments soldiers destroy the Jewish temple and killed over 1 million Jewish people! in the year you say.. 70 CE

Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)​

link to wikipedia:

Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[blü 2]

And if they have their own wills and subject them to the will of the Father,,,,,,,,,,, thus all acting together in the one purpose?

If they have no will between them but the Father's then the Father is the only one who matters.

And regardless, since each of them is 100% of God under the Trinity doctrine, why would any version of God submit to another version of God who can't make decisions any different to the other two versions? Unless they have and use distinct wills, there's only one will, traditionally the Father's, and what Jesus or the Ghost might prefer doesn't matter.

That is, the result is exactly the same as if Jesus and the Ghost didn't exist.

That might depend on his purpose for writing the story of Jesus. He may have wanted to have a written record of Jesus as told in sermons and teaching by Peter, and this was pretty much from the time Jesus first started appearing in public, the things that Peter knew first hand.

Either Jesus was born by divine insemination of a virgin or he wasn't. The author of Mark was purporting to write an account of Jesus. In his version Jesus is NOT born of a virgin, and doesn't need to be, and can't have been, since he became God's son by adoption, just as David was adopted. You don't need to adopt, or pretend to adopt, your own genetic offspring.

The thing is that you cannot logically assert that they did not know the things left out,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

As I keep saying, the author of Mark didn't just not mention it, his story rules it out altogether,

And you have no basis for attributing to any ancient writer knowledge (other than the most general kind) that is not found in what he wrote.

so your 5 versions of Jesus are only 5 ways that different people have presented Jesus in the NT and NOT 5 different versions of Jesus which are mutually exclusive.

In my view, that's untenable wishful thinking. There are at least three distinct models of Jesus in the NT, whether you or I like it or not. They are incompatible, and vary in credibility, Mark's being the closest to credible and the virgin birth tale being the farthest.

The idea that Jesus was not created but was involved in the creation of all things is to make Jesus God.

Each version of Jesus in the NT expressly denies that he's God and never claims to be God.

Only the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe ─ notions, as I've remarked before, from gnosticism, in which Jesus has the role of the demiurge, doing what the absolutely pure spirit of God would never do, create materiality.

They have in common that we don't know the names of their parents and are forced to imagine how they became human, the only hint about parentage being that both are said to be descended from David.

The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are also said to be descended from David, but that's nonsense, since the irreconcilable genealogies aren't credible and anyway are for Joseph, expressly NOT the father of Jesus. And of course the Jesus of Mark is not only NOT descended from David but says you don't have to be.

The idea that Jesus is Lord in to call Jesus God.

No, it's not. Paul distinguishes clearly between Jesus' role as Lord, and God's role as God. This is plainly stated in your quotes below, and God is always in charge and Jesus is always [his] senior underling and envoy ─

Phil 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[walt]

If they have no will between them but the Father's then the Father is the only one who matters.

And regardless, since each of them is 100% of God under the Trinity doctrine, why would any version of God submit to another version of God who can't make decisions any different to the other two versions? Unless they have and use distinct wills, there's only one will, traditionally the Father's, and what Jesus or the Ghost might prefer doesn't matter.

That is, the result is exactly the same as if Jesus and the Ghost didn't exist.

Either Jesus was born by divine insemination of a virgin or he wasn't. The author of Mark was purporting to write an account of Jesus. In his version Jesus is NOT born of a virgin, and doesn't need to be, and can't have been, since he became God's son by adoption, just as David was adopted. You don't need to adopt, or pretend to adopt, your own genetic offspring.


As I keep saying, the author of Mark didn't just not mention it, his story rules it out altogether,

And you have no basis for attributing to any ancient writer knowledge (other than the most general kind) that is not found in what he wrote.


In my view, that's untenable wishful thinking. There are at least three distinct models of Jesus in the NT, whether you or I like it or not. They are incompatible, and vary in credibility, Mark's being the closest to credible and the virgin birth tale being the farthest.


Each version of Jesus in the NT expressly denies that he's God and never claims to be God.

Only the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe ─ notions, as I've remarked before, from gnosticism, in which Jesus has the role of the demiurge, doing what the absolutely pure spirit of God would never do, create materiality.

They have in common that we don't know the names of their parents and are forced to imagine how they became human, the only hint about parentage being that both are said to be descended from David.

The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are also said to be descended from David, but that's nonsense, since the irreconcilable genealogies aren't credible and anyway are for Joseph, expressly NOT the father of Jesus. And of course the Jesus of Mark is not only NOT descended from David but says you don't have to be.


No, it's not. Paul distinguishes clearly between Jesus' role as Lord, and God's role as God. This is plainly stated in your quotes below, and God is always in charge and Jesus is always [his] senior underling and envoy ─

I respectfully thank you for all your hard work and research, you are proof it definitely makes a difference to persevere in your studies!
--My New Friend for Life.

 

[Dimi95]

No person of the Trinity acts independently of or in isolation from the others. The action of each is the action of all; the action of all is the action of each. And the divine action is essentially one.

As the being, essence or nature of a reality answers the question “what?”, the person of a reality answers the question “which one?” or “who?” Thus, when we ask “What is God?” we answer that God is the divine, perfect, eternal, absolute . . . and when we ask “Who is God?” we answer that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We discover, therefore, one God the Father Almighty with His one unique Son (Image and Word) and His one Holy Spirit.

There is one living God with His one perfect divine Life, who is personally the Son, with His one Spirit of Life.
There is one True God with His one divine Truth, who is personally the Son, with His one Spirit of Truth.
There is one wise and loving God with His one Wisdom and Love, who is personally the Son, with His one Spirit of Wisdom and Love.

The examples could go on indefinitely: the one divine Father personifying every aspect of His divinity in His one divine Son, who is personally activated by His one divine Spirit.

Where does The Son have different will from that of the Father?
Where does it say that the Father has different will from The Son?

'The Father is greater then I' assumes heavenly and unseen position.

1 Corinthians 15
So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit'.

How can 'The Son' be a life-giver since 'The Father' is only God?

 

[Dimi95]

If they have no will between them but the Father's then the Father is the only one who matters.

No , Scripture says otherwise

Matthew 11:27
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

And regardless, since each of them is 100% of God under the Trinity doctrine, why would any version of God submit to another version of God who can't make decisions any different to the other two versions?

Because God 'The Father' is unseen and revealed in the Son with the Holy Spirit.

Unless they have and use distinct wills, there's only one will, traditionally the Father's, and what Jesus or the Ghost might prefer doesn't matter.

]
Matthew 11:27 says otherwise

That is, the result is exactly the same as if Jesus and the Ghost didn't exist.

Nope , you still have to explain how does the Son chose to whom the Father will be revealed.

Either Jesus was born by divine insemination of a virgin or he wasn't.

He was , according to Scripture.

The author of Mark was purporting to write an account of Jesus. In his version Jesus is NOT born of a virgin, and doesn't need to be, and can't have been, since he became God's son by adoption, just as David was adopted. You don't need to adopt, or pretend to adopt, your own genetic offspring.

Again , failed

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew bare witness to the virgin-birth.

As I keep saying, the author of Mark didn't just not mention it, his story rules it out altogether,

Again ,
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

And you have no basis for attributing to any ancient writer knowledge (other than the most general kind) that is not found in what he wrote.

Why not?

In my view, that's untenable wishful thinking.

I could just give it back to you since you attack straw man on mainstream Christianity.

There are at least three distinct models of Jesus in the NT, whether you or I like it or not.

And you are making those differences to be neccesary wrong.

They are incompatible, and vary in credibility

Because many refuse to see it otherwise

Mark's being the closest to credible and the virgin birth tale being the farthest.

A secondary source involves generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.

Acts is out of the Four Gospels , and Acts is a sequel to Luke , so how is not Luke credible?

Each version of Jesus in the NT expressly denies that he's God and never claims to be God.

Nope, Mark 14:62 disagrees
Jesus claims 'I am' from Exodus.

Only the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe ─ notions, as I've remarked before, from gnosticism, in which Jesus has the role of the demiurge, doing what the absolutely pure spirit of God would never do, create materiality.

Already disproven

Do you even know the acts of those who were gnostics or?

They have in common that we don't know the names of their parents and are forced to imagine how they became human, the only hint about parentage being that both are said to be descended from David.

The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are also said to be descended from David, but that's nonsense, since the irreconcilable genealogies aren't credible and anyway are for Joseph, expressly NOT the father of Jesus. And of course the Jesus of Mark is not only NOT descended from David but says you don't have to be.

Please show the verses and explain them

No, it's not. Paul distinguishes clearly between Jesus' role as Lord, and God's role as God. This is plainly stated in your quotes below, and God is always in charge and Jesus is always [his] senior underling and envoy ─

Ignorance on Judaism..

Lord is Yahweh,that did not change..

Deuterenomy 6:4
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."
Don't forget that Jesus claims 'I am' in Mark

Paul does not do that

Romans 10:13 "For ‘Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved'

But we know from Isaiah 43:11 something else:
'I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.'

 

[Brian2]

If they have no will between them but the Father's then the Father is the only one who matters.

And regardless, since each of them is 100% of God under the Trinity doctrine, why would any version of God submit to another version of God who can't make decisions any different to the other two versions? Unless they have and use distinct wills, there's only one will, traditionally the Father's, and what Jesus or the Ghost might prefer doesn't matter.

That is, the result is exactly the same as if Jesus and the Ghost didn't exist.

In regard their wills, it is the will of the Father that is followed and the Holy Spirit and the Son will to do the Father's will. And of course, they all do exist even if they act in harmony, as one. 3 willing and acting as one. Sounds right. I wonder if they have discussions and disagreements before settling on the course of action.

And no, each of them is not 100 % of God unless that is counting the Father and HS in Jesus and counting Jesus and the HS in the Father and counting the Father and Jesus in the HS.
They are distinct but not separate. They are always united with each other.

Either Jesus was born by divine insemination of a virgin or he wasn't. The author of Mark was purporting to write an account of Jesus. In his version Jesus is NOT born of a virgin, and doesn't need to be, and can't have been, since he became God's son by adoption, just as David was adopted. You don't need to adopt, or pretend to adopt, your own genetic offspring.

At the baptism God declared Jesus was His Son and anointed Him with the Holy Spirit so that He could go and preach and do miracles etc.
The earliest witness we have about Jesus is from Paul who was not writing to tell the story of Jesus but who has Jesus as the uncreated pre human with God and who became a man. Even Jesus human birth is not when Jesus became God's Son. Jesus did not need to be born as a human to be the Son of God.

As I keep saying, the author of Mark didn't just not mention it, his story rules it out altogether,

And you have no basis for attributing to any ancient writer knowledge (other than the most general kind) that is not found in what he wrote.

The earliest witness, Paul, shows a knowledge of Jesus pre humanity and His deity.
Mark does not rule anything out.
You want to rule out the idea that Mark saw Jesus as anything more than a nice Jewish lad but you don't seem to realise that the prophecy Mark uses (Mark 1:2,3) is one that says John the Baptist is preparing the way of the LORD. (Isa 40:3) That implies the idea that the Messiah came from heaven and was not a normal human with father and mother.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the LORD,
make his paths straight,’”

In my view, that's untenable wishful thinking. There are at least three distinct models of Jesus in the NT, whether you or I like it or not. They are incompatible, and vary in credibility, Mark's being the closest to credible and the virgin birth tale being the farthest.

The LORD from heaven came as the Son of Man to suffer and die and rise to heaven to be glorified and come back in glory.

Each version of Jesus in the NT expressly denies that he's God and never claims to be God.

That does not appear to be the case when even Mark's gospel call Jesus God in the first few lines, as does Isaiah the prophet.

Only the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe ─ notions, as I've remarked before, from gnosticism, in which Jesus has the role of the demiurge, doing what the absolutely pure spirit of God would never do, create materiality.

The first witness to Jesus in writing (Paul) has the divine Jesus, as does the last, (John) and those in between also.

The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are also said to be descended from David, but that's nonsense, since the irreconcilable genealogies aren't credible and anyway are for Joseph, expressly NOT the father of Jesus. And of course the Jesus of Mark is not only NOT descended from David but says you don't have to be.

Any Messiah had to have descended from David and Jesus is called the Son of David in Mark.

No, it's not. Paul distinguishes clearly between Jesus' role as Lord, and God's role as God. This is plainly stated in your quotes below, and God is always in charge and Jesus is always [his] senior underling and envoy ─

Jesus is always the Son of God with the nature of His Father and submissive to His Father's will. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit work as one God in what they do.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus has SOME of the attributes of God but not ALL of the attributes of God.
Other humans can also have the attributes that Jesus had, and they do, to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual they are.

According to the Bible God is: Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient.

According to the Bible Jesus is: Holy, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient, but Jesus is not Eternal, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, or Immaterial.

That is why Jesus cannot be God, since Jesus only has SOME of the Attributes of God, not ALL of the Attributes of God.

If you reject the Bible where it shows that Jesus is God and if you only look at the human Jesus then you are not seeing the whole picture of who and what Jesus is.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I appreciate you saying that.

I'm not sure what you are asking. If you want to discuss some issues surrounding JW, I prefer to decline. As I said I prefer to look at the Bible independently, and as a Baha'i, I would be looking through that lens, you would be looking through a JW lens, and I doubt we would really adjust our understandings from a discussion. It's hard for anyone to do that.

That’s fine. I just thought we could reason on a few scriptures dealing with some topics we have in common.

I think I was mistaken regarding your identity. You’re not Tony, are you?

EDIT……

Yes, I just now realized, I mistook you for @TransmutingSoul . I apologize.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm sure most, if not all, of those religions would say that they are not part of the world, and that is why they don't participate in the war.

I grew up in the streets with a bunch of other kids. Believe it or not, we used to get high on drugs and talk about the bible. There was one kid among us who, I think was a JW, used to preach to us about Jehovah, Trinity, etc. I know his father was a JW. I know it sounds strange that we were using and talking about God, but at the time, we didn't know any better. I didn't know I was sinning. I remember he brought me a book. I read some of it and had questions. This led me to stop to talk with JWs in the street when I saw them. I didn't have bible studies, but they used to give me magazines. I think that's how I got the Trinity book. I believed the things I read but I never converted being so young and lost. I even went to the Kingdom Hall. One young minster tried to have a bible study with me in his car because he couldn't come to my house. My mom didn't want them there and I was hardly ever home. To make it short, I lost contact with those JWs and went through hard times to the point that I couldn't believe in a God anymore. That's how I became an atheist. I couldn't understand how God could allow me/people to suffer so much and exist.

I appreciate your background information.

So did you ever come to understand why God has permitted suffering?
What conclusion did you reach?

I never found a reasonable explanation until I started studying the Bible with Jehovah’s people. (And I don’t mean the Jews, lol.)

 

[Trailblazer]

If you reject the Bible where it shows that Jesus is God and if you only look at the human Jesus then you are not seeing the whole picture of who and what Jesus is.

There is no part of the Bible that shows that Jesus is God in the flesh.
The Bible says that God is spirit so God cannot be flesh.

Jesus was not God in the flesh, Jesus was a Manifestation of God in the flesh.

1 Timothy 3-16 God manifest in the flesh

KJV And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Soapy]

Jesus has SOME of the attributes of God but not ALL of the attributes of God.
Other humans can also have the attributes that Jesus had, and they do, to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual they are.

According to the Bible God is: Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient.

According to the Bible Jesus is: Holy, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient, but Jesus is not Eternal, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, or Immaterial.

That is why Jesus cannot be God, since Jesus only has SOME of the Attributes of God, not ALL of the Attributes of God.

Yes, thank you. We, as well as angels, have ESSENTIAL aspects of God. I believe that it is absolutely so as God would put Himself into all that He creates…. Just as anyone who creates anything puts a little of themself into their creation… we create what we are!!!

But I was, in fact, opposing the idea that I know that Brian2 was intimating… He wanted to make out that Jesus contained all the attributes of God which would mean that Jesus was either

• EQUAL TO GOD (though he would admit that God has no equal!!!!!)

or:

• WAS GOD (in every sense … every sense except (??!!) that Jesus was subordinate TO GOD … can anyone but a trinitarian believe the logic (the illogic) of such a claim?)

If you read his posts you can feel him squirming in his responses, you can feel the deceit in his creational answers making things up as he goes along with indifference to logic or sense or any aspect of reality.

However, each time his responses are contested it gives him the ability to modify his responses for next time by devising a seemingly more robust deception. But, for me, I stick to the basics WHICH DO NOT CHANGE, therefore no matter how much he squirms he cannot escape the fundamental lies of the trinity (or is it BINITY for him!) ideology (I don’t call it an Theology!).