- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (david @ April 22 2007,16:22) Quote David thats very enlightening. Especially since it is written by Non-Trinitarians.
How surprising!
Heres some more news…
Wikopedia JWs
WJ, the fact that you have to resort to this…. showing what the “critics” think of JW's in a trinity thread, in an attempt to fallaciously prove that the trinity is correct or something….ridiculous.
Have you ever heard of the word “fallacy”? We all use them, often not realizing it. You use them quite frequently however.
DavidResort to what?
You throw up a bunch of Non-Trinitarian garbage (who are anti-Trinitarian), and I throw up a bunch of JWs garbage from the same “Trust” worthy site
Wikopedia.Fair game isnt it?
You try to discredit Trinitarians and their Faith and I show the *Falicy* of your own faith which is Anti-Trinitarian.
Quote You throw up a bunch of Non-Trinitarian garbage (who are anti-Trinitarian), and I throw up a bunch of JWs garbage from the same “Trust” worthy site Oh, I see. you were saying the site is untrustworthy by spreading information about JW's that isn't trustworthy? Was that your point?
Regardless, what I was doing was showing what the overall reasons are why those who are “nontrinitarian” do not accept the trinity.
Those reasons are in fact the real actual reasons.
Quote You try to discredit Trinitarians and their Faith and I show the *Falicy* of your own faith which is Anti-Trinitarian. Wrong, what you did was not respond to the points raised,
by creating another argument
that isn't really connected
in order to prove something
And I had thought you were also using the appeal to fear and the genetic fallacy.
There was about 5 things wrong with what you did. But maybe I misunderstood you and you were simply trying to make some point about wikipedia being untrustworthy.Yet, those really are the reasons why nontrinitarians do not accept the trinity, are they not?
David,
Jesus is a man. Of course he received authority and power from God.
But He's also God. John 20:28.
Tim
Quote Jesus is a man. Of course he received authority and power from God. But He's also God. John 20:28.
So, befor he was given this authority and power, how much authority and power did he have?
did he have an equal amount of authority and power with his Father, and his God, Jehovah?
And if he did, does this mean that after he was given this authority, that he would have more?
do they have the same amount of authority and power?
How did this all fit?
Quote (david @ April 22 2007,16:32) Taken from wikipedia under: “nontrinitariansim:” Ontological Differences Between “God” and Jesus
Jesus prays to God. (John 17:1-3)
Jesus has faith in God. (Hebrews 2:17,18 Hebrews 3:2)
Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 3:13)
Jesus does not know things God knows. (Mark 13:32 Revelation 1:1)
Jesus worships God. (John 4:22)
Jesus has one who is God to him. (Revelation 3:12)
Jesus is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
Jesus’ head is God. (1 Corinthians 11:1)
Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God. ( Hebrews 5:7)
Jesus is given lordship by God. (Acts 2:36)
Jesus is exalted by God. (Acts 5:31)
Jesus is made high priest by God.. (Hebrews 5:10)
Jesus is given authority by God. (Philippians 2:9)
Jesus is given kingship by God. (Luke 1:32,33
Jesus is given judgment by God. (Acts 10:42)
“God rasied [Jesus] from the dead.” (Acts 2:24, Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 15:15)
Jesus is at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34)
Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man. (1 Tim 2:5)
God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus. (1 Cor 15:24-28)
DavidYes, Jesus was both God and man.
Yes there is an “Ontological” diference between God and man.
The problem that all you unbelievers have is that Jesus was both “Ontologically” God and “Ontologically” man.
This is clearly in the found in scriptures which you David have closed your eyes too because of the lies that your denomination teachs.
Thanks for the insight that he was a man.
But he also was God in the flesh!
So lets take a scripture where none of the translations disagree, well except maybe one.
John 1:1
KJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NKJV
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NLT
In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.NIV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.ESV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NASB
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.RSV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.ASV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.YLT
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;Darbys
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Websters
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.HNV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NWT
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. HMMM?
KJV Jn 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.He was/is the Lord form heaven.
Quote (david @ April 22 2007,16:46) Quote You throw up a bunch of Non-Trinitarian garbage (who are anti-Trinitarian), and I throw up a bunch of JWs garbage from the same “Trust” worthy site Oh, I see. you were saying the site is untrustworthy by spreading information about JW's that isn't trustworthy? Was that your point?
Regardless, what I was doing was showing what the overall reasons are why those who are “nontrinitarian” do not accept the trinity.
Those reasons are in fact the real actual reasons.
Quote You try to discredit Trinitarians and their Faith and I show the *Falicy* of your own faith which is Anti-Trinitarian. Wrong, what you did was not respond to the points raised,
by creating another argument
that isn't really connected
in order to prove something
And I had thought you were also using the appeal to fear and the genetic fallacy.
There was about 5 things wrong with what you did. But maybe I misunderstood you and you were simply trying to make some point about wikipedia being untrustworthy.Yet, those really are the reasons why nontrinitarians do not accept the trinity, are they not?
DavidIs there any point or question that I could answer for you that you would accept?
I think not?
So why waste my time. I simply expose the falicy of your religion which shows that you nor your religion in my opinion has any credibility.
Quote So lets take a scripture where none of the translations disagree, well except maybe one. You've falsely stated this a few times? Do you believe there is only one translation that doesn't translate it as “God”?
Quote
So why waste my time. I simply expose the falicy of your religion which shows that you nor your religion in my opinion has any credibility.
By quoting a site you were trying to prove was untrustworthy?Do you disagree that the reasons mentioned in wikipeda are the reasons why nontrinitarians disbelieve the trinity?
If not, I'm not sure where you were going with that.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 22 2007,17:18) Quote (david @ April 22 2007,16:46) Quote You throw up a bunch of Non-Trinitarian garbage (who are anti-Trinitarian), and I throw up a bunch of JWs garbage from the same “Trust” worthy site Oh, I see. you were saying the site is untrustworthy by spreading information about JW's that isn't trustworthy? Was that your point?
Regardless, what I was doing was showing what the overall reasons are why those who are “nontrinitarian” do not accept the trinity.
Those reasons are in fact the real actual reasons.
Quote You try to discredit Trinitarians and their Faith and I show the *Falicy* of your own faith which is Anti-Trinitarian. Wrong, what you did was not respond to the points raised,
by creating another argument
that isn't really connected
in order to prove something
And I had thought you were also using the appeal to fear and the genetic fallacy.
There was about 5 things wrong with what you did. But maybe I misunderstood you and you were simply trying to make some point about wikipedia being untrustworthy.Yet, those really are the reasons why nontrinitarians do not accept the trinity, are they not?
DavidIs there any point or question that I could answer for you that you would accept?
I think not?
So why waste my time. I simply expose the falicy of your religion which shows that you nor your religion in my opinion has any credibility.
DavidYou say…
Quote
Yet, those really are the reasons why nontrinitarians do not accept the trinity, are they not?The reason they dont accept the Trinity is they limit Yeshua to being just a man, therefore throwing out a huge amount of scriptures that show that Jesus is God.
And if those who would listen to the Spirit, they would hear and know that the Spirit of Prophesy is the “Testimony” of Jesus.
Quote So lets take a scripture where none of the translations disagree, well except maybe one.
Well, a false statement, but anyway:http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john1files.htm
Quote (david @ April 22 2007,17:22) Quote So lets take a scripture where none of the translations disagree, well except maybe one. You've falsely stated this a few times? Do you believe there is only one translation that doesn't translate it as “God”?
DavidShow me a credible translation that does!!!
Quote The reason they dont accept the Trinity is they limit Yeshua to being just a man Does not scripture say he “became flesh” human?
I don't want this to get away. I really am curious as to a responce:
Quote Quote
Jesus is a man. Of course he received authority and power from God.But He's also God. John 20:28.
So, befor he was given this authority and power, how much authority and power did he have?
did he have an equal amount of authority and power with his Father, and his God, Jehovah?
And if he did, does this mean that after he was given this authority, that he would have more?
do they have the same amount of authority and power?
How did this all fit?
Quote (david @ April 22 2007,17:26) Quote So lets take a scripture where none of the translations disagree, well except maybe one.
Well, a false statement, but anyway:http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john1files.htm
DavidYour cute little JW site goes against over 500 Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic tranlators who had credibility in tranlating the sriptures in the versions I mentioned.
Jws didnt even have any qualified Greek and Hebrew or Aramaic Translators that brought you your hellish NWT.
Quote (david @ April 22 2007,17:15) Quote Jesus is a man. Of course he received authority and power from God. But He's also God. John 20:28.
So, befor he was given this authority and power, how much authority and power did he have?
did he have an equal amount of authority and power with his Father, and his God, Jehovah?
And if he did, does this mean that after he was given this authority, that he would have more?
do they have the same amount of authority and power?
How did this all fit?
Hi David,
I think this deserves an answer.Quote (david @ April 22 2007,17:29) I don't want this to get away. I really am curious as to a responce: Quote Quote
Jesus is a man. Of course he received authority and power from God.But He's also God. John 20:28.
So, befor he was given this authority and power, how much authority and power did he have?
did he have an equal amount of authority and power with his Father, and his God, Jehovah?
And if he did, does this mean that after he was given this authority, that he would have more?
do they have the same amount of authority and power?
How did this all fit?
DavidThe answer has been given to you probably a thousand times.
But of course not to “Your” satisfaction.
Phil 2 David. Believe or not.
Thats up to you!
Hi W,
I don't understand.
So does Phil 2 say he had equal authority and power with God and put it aside.
Then He was given authority and power by God as you say-was it the same he left behind or what?
What was the point do you know?Quote Your cute little JW site goes against over 500 Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic tranlators who had credibility in tranlating the sriptures in the versions I mentioned. Jws didnt even have any qualified Greek and Hebrew or Aramaic Translators that brought you your hellish NWT.
Ah, so you have no idea what you're talking about. Nice.
Quote Quote (david @ April 22 2007,17:29)
I don't want this to get away. I really am curious as to a responce:Quote
Quote
Jesus is a man. Of course he received authority and power from God.But He's also God. John 20:28.
So, befor he was given this authority and power, how much authority and power did he have?
did he have an equal amount of authority and power with his Father, and his God, Jehovah?
And if he did, does this mean that after he was given this authority, that he would have more?
do they have the same amount of authority and power?
How did this all fit?
David
The answer has been given to you probably a thousand times.
But of course not to “Your” satisfaction.
Phil 2 David. Believe or not.
So you either won't or can't explain it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
