Sharpening Our Swords

[olrono]

I would like to start a tread called, “Sharpening Our Swords!” I remember when starting Bible studies we would encounter all kinds of Scripture to try to defend false doctrine. Going up against the Trinity was always a favorite of mine, so I’ll start with this false doctrine and a scripture. Revelation 1: 8, “I am the Al’pha and O’me-ga, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (KJV) There is no hurry for we can follow this tread and all the replies during the week, and if no one comes up with one I think really nails it, I’ll post my thoughts last. What do you think? Well here goes…

[Steadfast]

Dear Brother Olrono,

Many who believe in the trinity always defend the scripture in Philippians where it says Jesus 'emptied himself and took on a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men' to prove that Jesus temporarily gave up his Godship while a man, and took it up again after his resurrection.

So I looked for something to prove who Jesus was after his resurrection back to heaven. The book of Revelation was written in 96 CE, and the statement that Jesus made to John in the vision describes his post-resurrection relationship with his Father perfectly:

Revelation 3:12 - 'The one that conquers--I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no more go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem....'

Love, :Love:

Steadfast

next.... :D

[Dorcas]

Dear Brother Olrono,

Many who believe in the trinity always defend the scripture in Philippians where it says Jesus 'emptied himself and took on a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men' to prove that Jesus temporarily gave up his Godship while a man, and took it up again after his resurrection.

So I looked for something to prove who Jesus was after his resurrection back to heaven. The book of Revelation was written in 96 CE, and the statement that Jesus made to John in the vision describes his post-resurrection relationship with his Father perfectly:

Revelation 3:12 - 'The one that conquers--I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no more go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem....'

Love, :Love:
Steadfast

next.... :D[/b]

Dear Steadfast,
This is a great thread...Rev. 3:12 is a good one. We need to brush up on these doctrinal issues because (at least in my area) very few householders are even interested. I've gotten rusty!
Love ya'
Dorcas :applaudit:

[olrono]

I think you maybe got the wrong idea, the Scripture we are working with was supposed to be, Rev. 1:8, How would you answer to that one? We can consider yours too, but I was thinking we would work on one at a time?

[eyes&ears]

??????????????????????????????????????????? :dontknow:

[Dorcas]

I think you maybe got the wrong idea, the Scripture we are working with was supposed to be, Rev. 1:8, How would you answer to that one? We can consider yours too, but I was thinking we would work on one at a time?[/b] Dear Brother Olrono,
I'm not sure what question you have on Rev. 1:8. If you read ch.1:1-8, Jesus was sharing information given by his Father to share with the anointed (vs.7). Christ sends "greetings from his Father (the one who is, was, and is coming"), Next, a reference to Isa. 11:1,2 which mention the qualities Jehovah has given to his son, and lastly, greetings from Jesus Christ -- the firstborn from the dead and the Appointed king over Jehovah's earthly holdings. Vs. 7 refers to Christ as the one who would be coming into his kingdom and was pierced...Amen (ending the thought).
Vs. 8 Jehovah refers to himself as the "power behind the throne" - so to speak. Jehovah alone is the Almighty , above any gods in the past or future.
Am I on the same page with you? Does this explanation make sense?
We are all still learning...Dorcas :buja_w_oblokach:

[olrono]

<div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>I will check back and if you don’t post one, I’ll fine another. Agape, Ron

[olrono]

OK, here is another Scripture.
John 8: 58, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (KJV)
Remember, we are trying to overturn false doctrine of the Trinity.

[olrono]

<div class='quotemain'>Should I get harder Scriptures now, or does someone else like to choose one? Or perhaps I didn’t answer to your satisfaction? Someone could explain more if they want to, for I am not a good type writer doing one peck here and one peck there… I think it is very important to have this doctrine down perfectly as it is a cornerstone to Jehovah’s Witnesses that our God Jehovah is not the same person as our Lord Jesus Christ.

[olrono]

Ok, here is a hard one, Genesis 1: 26, “And God said, ‘ “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,’” (KJV) Warring, this is not as “easy” as you my think. You know how Trinitarians use this Scripture, but how did the Hebrews understand it?

[Cephalon]

Ok, here is a hard one, Genesis 1: 26, "And God said, &#39; "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,&#39;" (KJV) Warring, this is not as "easy" as you my think. You know how Trinitarians use this Scripture, but how did the Hebrews understand it?[/b]
Do you mean that Trinitarians believe that God was talking to the other members of the triad-god when He said "Let us make man in our image.."?

I understand it as God talking to his foreman, Jesus Christ (maybe even the angels). "in our image, likeness" means create man with certain qualities that God possesed such as sense of justice, love, etc..
or would Trinitarians also believe that this phrase "in our image.. likeness" means make man equals to God or be part of triad?

[Berean]

I understand it as God talking to his foreman, Jesus Christ (maybe even the angels). "in our image, likeness" means create man with certain qualities that God possesed such as sense of justice, love, etc..[/b]
Yes, that is how I&#39;ve always understood it. However, this could also be a case of &#39;Pluralis majestatis&#39;, where the plural is used to accentuate Jehovah&#39;s majesty.

[Kenneth]

We could argue about the trinity all day long and probably many here have from Genesis&#39; &#39;US&#39; to Revelations&#39; &#39;Alpha and Omega&#39;. I won&#39;t discuses the subject any longer with people until they can answer one simple question in John 3:16. The fact that Jesus&#39; was begotten proves he&#39;s not God. To be &#39;begotten&#39; one needs a &#39;begetter&#39;. You cannot be begotten and be eternal it&#39;s impossible. God is eternal; Jesus is not, he&#39;s begotten, he had a beginning . They have no idea how to answer that one. As they say in tennis its &#39;Game Set and Match&#39;.



Kenneth

[olrono]

[Kenneth]

But remember, this tread is called "Sharpening our Swords", with your answer, they would reply, "Jesus was 100% God and 100% man", thus when Jesus was begotten, (they say) was when he came to earth and was born a child, not when in heaven.[/b]

I had this said to me last week that he was begotten as a man on earth. However, the very fact that God gave his son denotes that he was begotten in heaven as the first of Gods works. "For God loved the world so much that he gave" to give you have to have in the first place.

Kenneth

[Warren]

How could Jesus have been 100% God and 100% man? Isn&#39;t that like saying an object is 100% wood and 100% iron?

[Berean]

How could Jesus have been 100% God and 100% man? Isn&#39;t that like saying an object is 100% wood and 100% iron?[/b]
Yep, it doesn&#39;t make sense. Just as it doesn&#39;t make sense why Jesus would be praying to his Father in John 17, if he was actually God himself. And that when he died, he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" - if he was God himself, he it would not make any sense for him to say that.

And olrono, it&#39;s nice to talk to you too, I quite like this topic, and the name - it&#39;s good to keep your sword sharp! :)

[Warren]

If Jesus was 100% God, no one could have killed him.

[olrono]

<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">Ok, here is another Scripture. Acts 20: 28, “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” (NIV)

[SWORDOFJAH]

This is a good thread. When I hear the trinitarians explaining the concept of fully God and fully man,it comes to my mind how paganism is mixed here.It reminds me of the Greek gods like Hercules and others.They were half human and half gods.

[stayawake]

Hi all,
I just must throw in my two cents.
Seems to me these Truniterrians, are not the kind one can reason with.If they would accept the whole Bible they would not be confused.
We have John the whole chapter 17, of a conversation between Father and Son.. Jesus is reminding his Father that he had done all that he was required to do while here on earth. He is also reminding Him to remember to raise him(JESUS) up to where he was beside his Father ,the way it was before he came to earth.
Never had anyone from earth as a human ever gone to heaven.
Thats why Jesus is referred to as the First fruits.
Now if Jeses were 100 % God while on earth he would not be concerned about his Father raising him from the dead, but Jesus knew what death was ,and he also knew to live again Jah would HAVE to raise him up from the dead. This of course would make Jah the ALMIGHTY. There is no equality here!!
OK , now it might be said, "well ! while Jesus was on earth " he wasnt really all God because he was part man, which one may say after he went back to heaven , thats when again he became equal to JAh."( NOT SO )
The scriptures tell us in Cor , that after the 1000 years have ended and all things have been made PERFECT under Christ rule, it is then that Jesus hands over all things to his Father and he (JESUS) himself subjects himself to Jah, it is then that Jahs original purpose is accomplished.
Must also remember that in Col 1:15 it brings out that Jesus was the first creation of all things. To be created one must have a CREATOR>.
love stayawakeI

[olrono]

This is a good thread. When I hear the trinitarians explaining the concept of fully God and fully man,it comes to my mind how paganism is mixed here.It reminds me of the Greek gods like Hercules and others.They were half human and half gods.[/b]

Trinitarians try to use this verse to prove Jesus is God, so how do we answer them?

[SWORDOFJAH]

However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." We can see which is mre accurate and grasp the meaning of it.

Also someone point out the text of John 3:16 as an evidence that was it was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.</div>
</span></span></span>

[olrono]

<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"> Romans 9: 5, “Christ, who is God over all, be praised.” (NIV)

[Berean]

Romans 9: 5, "Christ, who is God over all, be praised." (NIV) [/b]

It seems this is again a case of mistranslation. The NIV footnote says &#39;Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!&#39;

So the original text would be best translated as in the NWT and several other translations, where the &#39;who is over all&#39; refers to God, and &#39;Christ&#39; belongs to the sentence or phrase before that. &#39;Who is over all&#39; could also refer to Christ, but even then, Christ is not said to be God, as is in the case of the original rendition the NIV gives of this verse.

[olrono]

<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"> Colossians 2: 9, “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (KJV)

[olrono]

<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace…” (NIV)

[olrono]

<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">"And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace…" (NIV) [/b]

I want to bring this up again to the top. Anybody want to try to answer?
Thank You! Agape o&#39;l rono

[Berean]

Well, I assume trinitarians explain the words &#39;God&#39; and &#39;Father&#39; to refer to God, but in this case, they are titles given to the Son being spoken of in this particular scripture. &#39;God&#39; can actually indicate a mighty person, and &#39;Father&#39; can refer to, for instance, the father of a household, or the protector of a nation. So Isaiah 9:6 really just describes Jesus&#39; royal status, and isn&#39;t equalling him to God.

[olrono]

Now, our next Scripture is, Psalms 110: 1, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” (NIV)</span>

[olrono]

<div class='quotemain'>I am bringing this up to the top again to see how you would answer to this Scripture in answer to the Trinity.</span>

[olrono]

<div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>Oh yeh, where are all those ones who don’t like the other stuff we talk about? I will not let this tread die as long as I am a JW, even if I have to answer all my Scriptures myself. Thank You. Your Bro. Ron</span>

[Berean]

The first &#39;Lord&#39; in Psalm 110:1 refers to Jehovah, as per the original Hebrew text (YHWH), and the second &#39;Lord&#39; is just the Hebrew word for &#39;lord&#39;, in this case referring to Jesus, whom David called his Lord.

[olrono]

<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">OK, our next Scripture for consideration is 1 John 5: 20, “And we know that the Son is come, and hath givin us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life”. (KJV)

[Berean]

Thank you Berean, I guess you and I are the only ones interested? Anyway you answered correctly.[/b]
Yes, it would seem so... I do tend to wait a while before answering though, to see if anyone else wants to have a go at it. Also, I like reading your insights in these matters, it helps to be able to see things from how someone from another faith views certain scriptures, and how you can show them what it really means.

[olrono]

OK, our next Scripture for consideration is 1 John 5: 20, “And we know that the Son is come, and hath givin us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life”. (KJV)

[SWORDOFJAH]

Living Bible renders the end of this verse: "Jesus Christ his Son, who is the only true God; and he is eternal Life."


Contradiction ehhh.Why cause both Catholic and Protestant Bibles differentiate between Jesus and "the only true God" in John 17:3.

</span>

[Berean]

Also, if you read that text for the first time, it would seem that &#39;This is the true God&#39; refers to Jesus, but when you take a closer look, it actually refers to &#39;him that is true&#39;, which is of course God.

[olrono]

<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">Here is another favorite of mine, John 10: 33, “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (NIV)

[barry]

Hi Olrono,

Thanks for your research on this. It is very interesting.

regards,
Barry

[Berean]

Here is another favorite of mine, John 10: 33, "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (NIV)[/b]
First of all, it is certainly questionable when trinitarians use something these Jews said to substantiate their claim. Regardless of that though, they still have it wrong. The correct translation here - even though most of the time the word theos is mentioned in the gospel of John it is translated with &#39;God&#39; - would be &#39;a god&#39;, as in the NWT. The reason for this can be found in the context. In John 10:34, 35 (NIV), Jesus refers to the Jews&#39; own Law: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, &#39;I have said you are gods&#39;? If he called them &#39;gods,&#39; to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—

So here we can see that the same word theos is correctly translated with &#39;gods&#39;, in the same way as in Psalm 82:6, the text Jesus is referencing. Another clue is provided in the very next verse, in John 10:36 (NIV): what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, &#39;I am God&#39;s Son&#39;?

So here Jesus himself says that he did not claim to be God, but God&#39;s Son. Of course that would make him &#39;a god&#39;, but there&#39;s nothing wrong with that, since Jesus is just that, just as the ones &#39;to whom the word of God came&#39; were called &#39;gods&#39;. It&#39;s amazing how a text can be distorted when it is not carefully translated.

[olrono]

<div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>Remember, this is a quote from Joel 2: 32, where it is referring to Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures.</span>

[olrono]

Just to bring this to the top, any one wish to answer to Trinity doctrine concerning this Scripture? You know how it goes, you could get this objection tomorrow at the door.
Romans 10: 13, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”. (NIV)
Remember, this is a quote from Joel 2: 32, where it is referring to Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures.

[SWORDOFJAH]

This is in harmony with Paul&#39;s words as he pointed out using Joel 2:32....


</span>

[Jeshurun]

One of my favorites has always been Zechariah 14:9

⁹ And Jehovah must become king over all the earth. In that day Jehovah will prove to be one, and his name one.