Since: Mar 09

United States

#61 Jun 17, 2012
http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.p...
borgfree wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like scriptural proof, Please, that Gods Spirit is "not a person" but is rather a "power".

Since: Mar 09

United States

#62 Jun 17, 2012
Nomi wrote:
http://www.thebereans.net/foru m2/showthread.php?t=46474
<quoted text>
added info:

The Catholics are the main promoters of the Niacene Creed/Trinity Doctrine. Constantine was an Honorary Pope, and couldn't decide if GOD was one or what he was...so he instituted the Trinity. People whop follow it are essentiallly following the Cathoclic religion.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#63 Jun 18, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
or in essence directly from the Greek text it reads as:
"for we are walking through faith, not through sight."
But that translation sounds clumsy.
It would appear that the NWT committee choose "by" because for them "dia" normally indicates an outside agency. The noun "faith" is in the genitive case and indicates possession. In this instance the person is the possessor of the said faith,hence they have him "walking" (exercising)in his own faith.

“Gods love ... poured out”

Since: Dec 06

Sacramento

#64 Jun 18, 2012
sammydog wrote:
<quoted text>
Sam>.
I believe in one God the Father Almighty.the end
while we are here why do you believe in Baptism for the remission of sins? if that was true we would not need Jesus sacrifice for the remission of sins.
Personally, no. I believe our Savior told us to be baptized, we can be either obedient or disobedient.

If you believe in "one God the Father", how do you reconcile that with the teaching and posts of JWs on this forum that Jesus is also God?

“Gods love ... poured out”

Since: Dec 06

Sacramento

#65 Jun 18, 2012
Nomi wrote:
<quoted text>
added info:
The Catholics are the main promoters of the Niacene Creed/Trinity Doctrine. Constantine was an Honorary Pope, and couldn't decide if GOD was one or what he was...so he instituted the Trinity. People whop follow it are essentiallly following the Cathoclic religion.
You probably do not know, Nomi, the Catholic religion was the original Christian faith, all others sprung from it. So, even Jehovah's witnesses believe teachings coming from the Catholic Church. BTW, Catholic=Universal.

“Gods love ... poured out”

Since: Dec 06

Sacramento

#66 Jun 18, 2012
Nomi wrote:
http://www.thebereans.net/foru m2/showthread.php?t=46474
<quoted text>
You direct me to another forum?

You cannot answer?

“Gods love ... poured out”

Since: Dec 06

Sacramento

#67 Jun 18, 2012
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
It's amazing how the same old tune plays from this stuck record!
<quoted text>
I would call this statement blatant hypocrisy!
Because the same things happen in her Church,(whatever that may be), and --- every other Church --- in Christendom, day after day, week after week, year after year!
The very same program is used on her, and all other parishioners, which she herself calls "...brain washing..."!
The facts of the matter are, this claim is very weak, and is nothing but a diversion away from the main arguments here.
NOTE CAREFULLY!
DEAR BIBLE STUDENTS & AND THOSE WHO ARE SINCERELY INTERESTED!
There is --- no attempt --- to counter anything technical, nor doctrinal, in my actual posts.
All there is childish derogatory comments about my religion.
She and others do not even attempt to tackle --- the substance --- of my posts.
They can't come back with any --- intelligent answer --- to my ( sincere ) objections top their ( CLAIMS ) about the ANF and the hypothetical Tri{3}nity.
I shall continue exposing the clear:
"...DECEPTION..."
In Bork's and Deelighful's Anti-Tri{3}nity Brochure copy and past jobs!
Hmmmm, someone else on this forum likes to change screen names when posting back, wonder who that is??

And, I, we, have given your attempts at translation and interpretation all the attention they deserve.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#68 Jun 18, 2012
borgfree wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm, someone else on this forum likes to change screen names when posting back, wonder who that is??
And, I, we, have given your attempts at translation and interpretation all the attention they deserve.
I'm not posting here for you buddy.

Your opinion is of no value to me.

I am answering the claims you have UN-doubtedly copied and pasted from else where.

You and Dee brought it up.

If you have any clue at all, you would show exactly -

1.) WHERE
2.) HOW
3.) WHY
4.) IN ( WHAT ) WAY

The technical data I posted is incorrect or inaccurate, instead of making --- empty assertions --- into the air, and resorting to character assassination.

The Bible Students and those who have a -- sincere -- interest in this topic, who are looking on, will be able to make their own judgements on what you say and I say.

This is why I post here.

PROVERBS 11:9(A) NWT:

"...By his mouth the one who is -( AN APOSTATE ) brings his fellowman to -( ruin )..."

PROVERBS 11:9(B) NWT:

"...BUT ---( BY KNOWLEDGE )--- ARE THE RIGHTEOUS RESCUED..."

They will then be in a better position to make an informed decision, without having to rely on your --- one-sided --- accusations and claims about the ANF and the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses.

PROVERBS 11:9(A) NWT:

"...By his mouth the one who is -( AN APOSTATE ) brings his fellowman to -( ruin )..."

PROVERBS 11:9(B) NWT:

"...BUT ---( BY KNOWLEDGE )--- ARE THE RIGHTEOUS RESCUED..."

Get the picture!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#69 Jun 18, 2012
Cult Defenders are Liars wrote:
Clement of Alexandria (153-217 AD): "For 'before the morning star it was;' and 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'"

and

"This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man ..."

and

"The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends." - Exhortation to the Heathen, Ch 1.
continued...
This one here is a montage of quotes.

If you didn't read it carefully, you wouldn't know.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#70 Jun 18, 2012
Cult Defenders are Liars wrote:
Clement of Alexandria (153-217 AD): "For 'before the morning star it was;' and 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'"
That's an interesting phrase that!

"...BEFORE THE MORNING STAR..."

See if you can recognize it in this other quote from the same writer, Clement of Alexandria, in one of his other works:

GREEK TEXT: "...TOU PROTOK&#932;ISTOU THEOU LOGOU..." -(1.20.1 MPG)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 155-220 c.e.): "...For ( WE ) thus understand "I begot thee --- before the morning star" --- with reference to THE FIRST-CREATED LOGOS OF GOD and simil­arly "thy name is before sun" and moon and before all creation..." -(1.20.1, "EXTRACTS FROM THEODOTUS" Robert Pierce Casey, "The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria," Studies and Documents 1; London: Christophers, 1934.)

How about that!

Notice how Clement says:

"...FOR ---( WE )--- THUS UNDERSTAND..."

Meaning this was not what the Gnostic writer Theodotion, who he was writing against belief, but his own, and general Christian belief.

The Jesus, as the Logos, or "Word," was:

Gk.,( TOU PROTO-K&#932;ISTOU THEOU LOGOU )

"...THE ---( FIRST CREATED )--- LOGOS OF GOD..."

It's always good to cross reference the same writers other writings.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#71 Jun 18, 2012
TYPO CORRECTION:

Cult Defenders are Liars wrote:
Clement of Alexandria (153-217 AD): "For 'before the morning star it was;' and 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'"

That's an interesting phrase that!

"...BEFORE THE MORNING STAR..."

See if you can recognize it in this other quote from the same writer, Clement of Alexandria, in one of his other works:

GREEK TEXT: "...TOU PROTOKTISTOU THEOU LOGOU..." -(1.20.1 MPG)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 155-220 c.e.): "...For ( WE ) thus understand "I begot thee --- before the morning star" --- with reference to THE FIRST-CREATED LOGOS OF GOD and simil­arly "thy name is before sun" and moon and before all creation..." -(1.20.1, "EXTRACTS FROM THEODOTUS" Robert Pierce Casey, "The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria," Studies and Documents 1; London: Christophers, 1934.)

How about that!

Notice how Clement says:

"...FOR ---( WE )--- THUS UNDERSTAND..."

Meaning this was not what the Gnostic writer Theodotion, who he was writing against belief, but his own, and general Christian belief.

The Jesus, as the Logos, or "Word," was:

Gk.,( TOU PROTO-KTISTOU THEOU LOGOU )

"...THE ---( FIRST CREATED )--- LOGOS OF GOD..."

It's always good to cross reference the same writers other writings.
Unknown

Adelaide, Australia

#72 Jun 18, 2012
borgfree wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, no. I believe our Savior told us to be baptized, we can be either obedient or disobedient.
If you believe in "one God the Father", how do you reconcile that with the teaching and posts of JWs on this forum that Jesus is also God?
The Hebrew Law of Shaliah or principle of agency.

A person's agent is considered to be the person himself. Jesus is the agent of God, the one sent by God to be God's representative. Just as Moses represented God to Pharaoh, and Moses was Elohim to Pharaoh, likewise Jesus is theos in that sense. Jesus FUNCTIONS as God even though He doesn't possess the same nature as God. Jesus stated that if the people to whom the Law was given were called 'theos', then the obvious conclusion is that He can be called that also. Being called 'theos' or 'elohim' doesn't necessarily make you Deity. Men are called elohim, angels are called elohim and Satan is called theos. There is more meaning to it than what is understood in orthodoxy at the present.

Since: Sep 11

Tunbridge Wells, UK

#73 Jun 18, 2012
Doulon
Doulon wrote:
<quoted text>
It would appear that the NWT committee choose "by" because for them "dia" normally indicates an outside agency.


I'd say that it is understood that their intended meaning is "by the means of" in the sense of Dia intrinsically meaning "through"
Doulon wrote:
<quoted text>
The noun "faith" is in the genitive case and indicates possession. In this instance the person is the possessor of the said faith,hence they have him "walking" (exercising)in his own faith.
A valid point, but not necessarily the way... With the Greek preposition "Dia" translated as "through" before the genitive, Dia includes the idea of proceeding from and passing out...

In the following verse "The Temple" is in the genetive (possessive) case but even though the word Temple indicates possession, as in belonging to "of",(belonging to the Father and God of Jesus) the KJV translate it as follows, using the word "through" and not "by or "in":

Mark 11:16
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel *through*[Dia] the temple. KJV

Showing us the proper usage of the Greek preposition "Dia" even with a genetive possessive case noun, Dia is translated as "Through".

.

Since: Sep 11

Tunbridge Wells, UK

#74 Jun 18, 2012
Unknown wrote:
<quoted text>
The Hebrew Law of Shaliah or principle of agency.
A person's agent is considered to be the person himself. Jesus is the agent of God, the one sent by God to be God's representative. Just as Moses represented God to Pharaoh, and Moses was Elohim to Pharaoh, likewise Jesus is theos in that sense. Jesus FUNCTIONS as God even though He doesn't possess the same nature as God. Jesus stated that if the people to whom the Law was given were called 'theos', then the obvious conclusion is that He can be called that also. Being called 'theos' or 'elohim' doesn't necessarily make you Deity. Men are called elohim, angels are called elohim and Satan is called theos. There is more meaning to it than what is understood in orthodoxy at the present.
"Unknown"...
A great and insightful post ! That is exactly what Jesus was, one of the Shaliach, just as the angels were, and others.

"Shaliach"...the word means "agent" and "emissary" it is a halachic (Torah-legal) term for a person empowered by someone else to act in his stead.

A biblical example:

<<"In the 6th chapter of Judges, we find another example of a man speaking to God through an angelic representative. Verse 11 identifies the message bearer as “Jehovah’s angel.” There we read:“Later Jehovah’s angel came and sat under the big tree that was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while Gideon his son was beating out wheat in the winepress so as to get it quickly out of the sight of Midian.”

This messenger,“Jehovah’s angel,” is thereafter represented as if he were Jehovah God himself. In verses 14 and 15, we read:“Upon that Jehovah faced [Gideon] and said:‘Go in this power of yours, and you will certainly save Israel out of Midian’s palm. Do I not send you?’ In turn he said to him:‘Excuse me, Jehovah. With what shall I save Israel?’” So the materialized angel seen by Gideon and with whom he spoke is represented in the Biblical account as if he were God himself. In verse 22, Gideon says:“I have seen Jehovah’s angel face to face!” The angel spoke precisely what God told him to speak. Therefore, Gideon spoke with God through this angelic spokesman.">>

.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#75 Jun 18, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
Doulon
<quoted text>
I'd say that it is understood that their intended meaning is "by the means of" in the sense of Dia intrinsically meaning "through"
<quoted text>
A valid point, but not necessarily the way... With the Greek preposition "Dia" translated as "through" before the genitive, Dia includes the idea of proceeding from and passing out...
In the following verse "The Temple" is in the genetive (possessive) case but even though the word Temple indicates possession, as in belonging to "of",(belonging to the Father and God of Jesus) the KJV translate it as follows, using the word "through" and not "by or "in":
Mark 11:16
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel *through*[Dia] the temple. KJV
Showing us the proper usage of the Greek preposition "Dia" even with a genetive possessive case noun, Dia is translated as "Through".
.
Doulon works like a subtile little sniper hiding in the bushes with his jungle blow dart.

He gets his little digs where he can at the NWT.

He he well knows the principle of ( CONTEXTUAL ) TRANSLATION.

Just ignore it.

He is well aware, that by far, the majority of the uses of Gk.,( DIA ) simply mean:

"...THROUGH..."

And/or:

"...THROUGH THE INTERMEDIATE AGENCY OF..."

“Gods love ... poured out”

Since: Dec 06

Sacramento

#76 Jun 18, 2012
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not posting here for you buddy.
Your opinion is of no value to me.
I am answering the claims you have UN-doubtedly copied and pasted from else where.
You and Dee brought it up.
If you have any clue at all, you would show exactly -
1.) WHERE
2.) HOW
3.) WHY
4.) IN ( WHAT ) WAY
The technical data I posted is incorrect or inaccurate, instead of making --- empty assertions --- into the air, and resorting to character assassination.
The Bible Students and those who have a -- sincere -- interest in this topic, who are looking on, will be able to make their own judgements on what you say and I say.
This is why I post here.
PROVERBS 11:9(A) NWT:
"...By his mouth the one who is -( AN APOSTATE ) brings his fellowman to -( ruin )..."
PROVERBS 11:9(B) NWT:
"...BUT ---( BY KNOWLEDGE )--- ARE THE RIGHTEOUS RESCUED..."
They will then be in a better position to make an informed decision, without having to rely on your --- one-sided --- accusations and claims about the ANF and the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses.
PROVERBS 11:9(A) NWT:
"...By his mouth the one who is -( AN APOSTATE ) brings his fellowman to -( ruin )..."
PROVERBS 11:9(B) NWT:
"...BUT ---( BY KNOWLEDGE )--- ARE THE RIGHTEOUS RESCUED..."
Get the picture!
"I'm not posting here for you buddy.

Your opinion is of no value to me."

You are confusing my kindness with friendship, I am not your "buddy".

I have heard and read yours and other JWs "opinions" for the first 54 years of my life, they too are valueless.

Which explains my lack of patience with your posts. I have had far too much experience with know-it-all Jehovah's witnesses who will not reason, consider other opinions, consider others research material, thoughts, or anything else that is not sanctioned by Watchtower slave-masters.

If you are determined to peddle your self-righteousness here, I think you will be met with a lot of dis-respect.
Why

York, UK

#77 Jun 18, 2012
Interestingly the first expression of the Trinity didn't involve the holy spirit. It was Father, Son,(Female mother) Wisdom. This was soon dropped in favour of the holy spirit.

Trinities greatest flaw is it completely unbiblical origin. It was born 300+ years after the books of the bible were concluded.

To this day I continue to meet Many members of trinitarian religions that see how flawed the trinity is as a teaching.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#78 Jun 18, 2012
Hi

I am new poster. I introduced myself over on the "False Trinity" thread.

The title of this thread is(Just what is the Trinity Doctrine). After reading all the posts for a defintion in this thread I was only able to come up with Post #4 by Borgfree where he states:

"I accept the one spelled out in the "Nicrene Creed". Borgfree then quotes in full the "Nicrene Creed".

Post #4 was challenged in Post #5 by Matt13weedhacker where he states that the "Nicrene Creed of 325" was ammended in 381.

Borgfree responded that he would look it up and get back -- todate I have not seen a response to this challenge.

After reading all the posts(ones that support the Trinity) in this thread I was unable to find one that EXPLICITLY agreed or disagreed with the "Nicrene Creed" defintion for the Trinity Doctrine. Are there any Trinitarians who wouild agree, ammend, or add or subtract from that defintion? I would appreciate their comments.

In Post #41 MadJW implies -- that Trinitarians have differnt versions. Is MadJW right?

Looking forward to your comments.

Dave

The Nicrene

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#79 Jun 18, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
I'd say that it is understood that their intended meaning is "by the means of" in the sense of Dia intrinsically meaning "through"
If that was the case,then why not just use "through" ?

After all,the very well respected Young's translation did just that:

Young's Literal Translation

"for through faith we walk, not through sight -- "

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80 Jun 18, 2012
Correction -- delete the words The Nicrene after my name -- it was an error

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Praise Jehovah (Jul '13) 5 min dee lightful 1,630
Forgiveness of sins 5 min FutureMan 30
How to distinguish between a religion & a cult: 5 min lol 35
blood is the symbol of life is the symbol more ... 7 min little lamb 13
The Blood Thing Made Simple 10 min array 1,006
Found this today about Gods name. 17 min FutureMan 2,577
Christian Bale: raised as a JW? 23 min hMMMMM 21
The Jehovah's Witness Cult - MONEY is its god 6 hr anon 252
Please remember Jehovah's Witnesses are victims 7 hr Paul 250
JW 3rd Grader needs to stop preaching in school! 7 hr anon 514
The Great FDS Own Goal 8 hr Maravilla 726
More from around the web