How to defend the trinity!

[keiw1]

Right and you weren't there ,those that lost money should just understand .

My family didn't .I remember things well.

In 1983 ,the kjv was said by the elders of the hall that it was still a good translation.

The nwt was very new then .you are only here because you want someone to join .

So the tract society called donating and receiving blood a sin in that it was the same as eating blood.

No ,whoops they were wrong .
Don't go to college,don't do alot .that's changed a bit .

A pattern of that mistaken dates of 1914,1918 ,1925,1976,and 2000.


Yeah just ignore that tis a tiny error.

It was still taught in the hall that 1914 was important .that this generation wouldn't die.thst was up to the 90s.


The generation that saw that is very few left .it's been 108 years.

I was there, i started learning Gods truth in 1961. A small error considering satan is the one posing as the trinity and is getting worship posing as every false god on earth for worship.

 

[jasonc]

I was there, i started learning Gods truth in 1961. A small error considering satan is the one posing as the trinity and is getting worship posing as every false god on earth for worship.

But trust the perfect slave that made mistakes ,not once four times.

Trust the nwt who uses Greek sources from pagans who compiled it and translated it a bit better then the earlier ones used .


Westcort and hort.two Anglican men who founded pieces of a lost text and created a better understanding of early Greek uses them .

They used the textus recipticus
And others .

Trinitarians themselves

.

 

[Free]

I know its fact about Ho Theos--Only the Father is called that in the NT.

Even though you continue to dismiss my points without actually addressing them (and I will go back and collect them all for another post), this claim of yours, which you have made more than once, is absolutely not true.

Mat 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God [ho Theos] with us).

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God [ho Theos]!”

That is two uses of ho Theos that directly refer to Jesus. There are probably more, but that is enough to prove you wrong on this point.

The point is, while ho Theos does often refer to the Father, it also refers to the one true God in general. These two verses show that Jesus is also the one true God.

 

[keiw1]

But trust the perfect slave that made mistakes ,not once four times.

Trust the nwt who uses Greek sources from pagans who compiled it and translated it a bit better then the earlier ones used .


Westcort and hort.two Anglican men who founded pieces of a lost text and created a better understanding of early Greek uses them .

They used the textus recipticus
And others .

Trinitarians themselves

.

All mortals err, Satan attacks Gods chosen more than any one else. He already owns the rest. Bad teachings started to get in as soon as Jesus died, In Peters book some called super apostles were teaching it was ok to fornicate in some congregations. In the book of Titus it begins saying Titus was left behind to correct error teachings that got in. In the OT the Israelite religion fell over and over, served false gods, but then repented and God forgave them and took them back over and over. All mortals err-if they repent God forgives them.
The Nwt had holy spirit behind them. The only translation who loved God enough to put his name back where God inspired it to be because he wants it there. satans will had it removed, Thus all using the altered versions are being mislead into supporting satans will over Gods will.

 

[keiw1]

Even though you continue to dismiss my points without actually addressing them (and I will go back and collect them all for another post), this claim of yours, which you have made more than once, is absolutely not true.

Mat 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God [ho Theos] with us).

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God [ho Theos]!”

That is two uses of ho Theos that directly refer to Jesus. There are probably more, but that is enough to prove you wrong on this point.

The point is, while ho Theos does often refer to the Father, it also refers to the one true God in general. These two verses show that Jesus is also the one true God.

If you were correct or the men you listen to, then Jesus lied. He clearly teaches-( John 17:3)The one who sent him= Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. We know Jesus didnt lie, thus the error lies elsewhere. Best to believe Jesus-no trinitarian will.

 

[jasonc]

All mortals err, Satan attacks Gods chosen more than any one else. He already owns the rest. Bad teachings started to get in as soon as Jesus died, In Peters book some called super apostles were teaching it was ok to fornicate in some congregations. In the book of Titus it begins saying Titus was left behind to correct error teachings that got in. In the OT the Israelite religion fell over and over, served false gods, but then repented and God forgave them and took them back over and over. All mortals err-if they repent God forgives them.
The Nwt had holy spirit behind them. The only translation who loved God enough to put his name back where God inspired it to be because he wants it there. satans will had it removed, Thus all using the altered versions are being mislead into supporting satans will over Gods will.

So when men say Gid said and he didnt just over look that .

Right ,once may be but we'll I guess that's Satan that told the mother of a son who needed blood transfusion to live with a liver transplant to refuse it and let him die .

That's Satan when she left the hall over that or ones like her.

Various False Prophecies of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society | Effectual Grace

effectualgrace.com

I'm also a charismatic and operated in prophecy .I know the temptation .I avoid it unless I know ,for sure .which hasn't been in a long time .yes for some it exists

 

[keiw1]

So when men say Gid said and he didnt just over look that .

Right ,once may be but we'll I guess that's Satan that told the mother of a son who needed blood transfusion to live with a liver transplant to refuse it and let him die .

That's Satan when she left the hall over that or ones like her.

Various False Prophecies of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society | Effectual Grace

effectualgrace.com

I'm also a charismatic and operated in prophecy .I know the temptation .I avoid it unless I know ,for sure .which hasn't been in a long time .yes for some it exists

This isnt the real life, Gods kingdom is the real life, those standing up now for Gods will get to enter that kingdom, the rest do not. In the NT it says- Abstain from blood. No mortal can prove it does not mean blood transfusion, its obvious God does not want one to have blood go into their bodies that is why the OT rejects the eating of it. They had no clue about transfusions back then. Or they would have condemned it. In Genesis it teaches the soul is in the blood. So does one get apart of anothers soul taking transfusions?

 

[Free]

If you were correct or the men you listen to, then Jesus lied. He clearly teaches-( John 17:3)The one who sent him= Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. We know Jesus didnt lie, thus the error lies elsewhere. Best to believe Jesus-no trinitarian will.

Ho Theos, which you said is only used of the Father, is also used of Jesus in the two verses I gave. How do you explain your claim? I can explain it perfectly because the Trinity is true. Jesus is truly God but he is the Son, not the Father. What Jesus in John 17:3 said must be taken in context, including in the context of him being called and referred to as truly God. Thomas believed Jesus, why don't you?

We should also here consider Phil 2:5-8. I'll even quote from the NWT:

5 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.* 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake.

Notice how even the NWT compares Jesus's "existing in God's form" with his taking "a slave's form and [becoming] human." Just what is it that Jesus "emptied himself" of in order to take "a slave's form and become human"? What was he before becoming a human and where was he before "he came as a man"?

This passage is speaking of Christ's humility, the humility we are all to have. And what greater humility is there than the Son of God, having always existed as God, emptying himself and becoming human? There cannot be a greater example of humility, which is precisely why Paul used it.

So, while Jesus did say that the Father is the only true God, he said that as the Son Incarnate, as truly human. It would have caused a great deal of confusion for Jesus to state explicitly that he was God, as they would have thought he was the Father. Regardless, his statement that the Father is the only true God does not exclude Jesus from also being truly God; he was stating who the Father was, not who he was.

 

[jasonc]

This isnt the real life, Gods kingdom is the real life, those standing up now for Gods will get to enter that kingdom, the rest do not. In the NT it says- Abstain from blood. No mortal can prove it does not mean blood transfusion, its obvious God does not want one to have blood go into their bodies that is why the OT rejects the eating of it. They had no clue about transfusions back then. Or they would have condemned it. In Genesis it teaches the soul is in the blood. So does one get apart of anothers soul taking transfusions?

That isnt real?

Dude my first funeral was in 1983.in the hall.



The ban on blood donation was then.

You are that dishonest .

The Bible doesn't call it sin either and you aren't eating it

You can donate blood to yourself and often they have you do that for surgeries as I know a few who had that done for major surgeries .



.

 

[keiw1]

Ho Theos, which you said is only used of the Father, is also used of Jesus in the two verses I gave. How do you explain your claim? I can explain it perfectly because the Trinity is true. Jesus is truly God but he is the Son, not the Father. What Jesus in John 17:3 said must be taken in context, including in the context of him being called and referred to as truly God. Thomas believed Jesus, why don't you?

We should also here consider Phil 2:5-8. I'll even quote from the NWT:

5 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.* 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake.

Notice how even the NWT compares Jesus's "existing in God's form" with his taking "a slave's form and [becoming] human." Just what is it that Jesus "emptied himself" of in order to take "a slave's form and become human"? What was he before becoming a human and where was he before "he came as a man"?

This passage is speaking of Christ's humility, the humility we are all to have. And what greater humility is there than the Son of God, having always existed as God, emptying himself and becoming human? There cannot be a greater example of humility, which is precisely why Paul used it.

So, while Jesus did say that the Father is the only true God, he said that as the Son Incarnate, as truly human. It would have caused a great deal of confusion for Jesus to state explicitly that he was God, as they would have thought he was the Father. Regardless, his statement that the Father is the only true God does not exclude Jesus from also being truly God; he was stating who the Father was, not who he was.

In trinity translation Jesus might be called Ho Theos, but if one googles Ho Theos it clearly says-Only the Father is called Ho Theos in reality. Only Catholicism translating remained when the protestants translated.

 

[keiw1]

That isnt real?

Dude my first funeral was in 1983.in the hall.



The ban on blood donation was then.

You are that dishonest .

The Bible doesn't call it sin either and you aren't eating it

You can donate blood to yourself and often they have you do that for surgeries as I know a few who had that done for major surgeries .



.

If its your blood why not. Its not anothers. It just says-abstain from blood in the NT-No mortal can prove its not referring to blood transfusion. God clearly shows by not allowing one to even eat animal blood, he does not want one putting foreign blood into their bodies.

 

[Free]

In trinity translation Jesus might be called Ho Theos, but if one googles Ho Theos it clearly says-Only the Father is called Ho Theos in reality. Only Catholicism translating remained when the protestants translated.

No, if the NWT used the Greek manuscripts, which it had to, then these two verses use ho Theos.

Here are a couple of previous points which you didn't address:

Let's look at a few passages from the ESV and compare them with the NWT. From the ESV:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now the NWT:

Joh 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

1 Cor 8:6 there is actually to us one God,d the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

Col 1:16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

Don't you find it interesting that the NWT agrees with the ESV in John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 but then suddenly contradicts itself in Col 1:16-17, where "other" was added into the text. Why do you think the NWT contradicts itself? Why do you think "other" was added to Col 1:16-17, especially since "other" doesn't appear in the Greek manuscripts?

But, more than that, even using the NWT in John 1:3, we see that "apart from him not even one thing came into existence." The only logical conclusion then, is that the Word cannot be something that came into existence. Notice that this contradicts the NWT in John 1:1, since the Word is eternal and, therefore, cannot be "a god." Only God is eternal. Of course, as I have previously pointed out, the NT writers were strict monotheists, so from that alone we know it cannot be "a god."

Please address these points: 1) the application of ho Theos to Jesus by the NWT, 2) the insertion of "other" in Col 1:16-17 in the NWT which contradicts John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 in the NWT, and 3) how, if Jesus is a created being, if he came into existence, "all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence," as the NWT states. You can't have it both ways--either Jesus came into existence and John is wrong, and the NWT is wrong, or John is right and Jesus never came into existence because he has always existed.

 

[keiw1]

No, if the NWT used the Greek manuscripts, which it had to, then these two verses use ho Theos.

Here are a couple of previous points which you didn't address:

Let's look at a few passages from the ESV and compare them with the NWT. From the ESV:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now the NWT:

Joh 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

1 Cor 8:6 there is actually to us one God,d the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

Col 1:16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

Don't you find it interesting that the NWT agrees with the ESV in John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 but then suddenly contradicts itself in Col 1:16-17, where "other" was added into the text. Why do you think the NWT contradicts itself? Why do you think "other" was added to Col 1:16-17, especially since "other" doesn't appear in the Greek manuscripts?

But, more than that, even using the NWT in John 1:3, we see that "apart from him not even one thing came into existence." The only logical conclusion then, is that the Word cannot be something that came into existence. Notice that this contradicts the NWT in John 1:1, since the Word is eternal and, therefore, cannot be "a god." Only God is eternal. Of course, as I have previously pointed out, the NT writers were strict monotheists, so from that alone we know it cannot be "a god."

Please address these points: 1) the application of ho Theos to Jesus by the NWT, 2) the insertion of "other" in Col 1:16-17 in the NWT which contradicts John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 in the NWT, and 3) how, if Jesus is a created being, if he came into existence, "all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence," as the NWT states. You can't have it both ways--either Jesus came into existence and John is wrong, and the NWT is wrong, or John is right and Jesus never came into existence because he has always existed.

There are many errors in the catholicism translated Greek Lexicons to fit false council teachings.

 

[Free]

There are many errors in the catholicism translated Greek Lexicons to fit false council teachings.

Again, I ask that you actually address the points I made. You are either very unlearned in these things and so shouldn’t be debating them, or you have some bad cognitive dissonance which isn’t allowing you to address them.

Every Bible translation, including the NWT, is based on the same limited number of Greek manuscripts. Those manuscripts have ho Theos for Jesus in those two verses I gave. There is no getting around that fact.

Please, address and provide a refutation of each of the points I made in my previous post. Simply repeating the same non-answers is poor form.

 

[keiw1]

Again, I ask that you actually address the points I made. You are either very unlearned in these things and so shouldn’t be debating them, or you have some bad cognitive dissonance which isn’t allowing you to address them.

Every Bible translation, including the NWT, is based on the same limited number of Greek manuscripts. Those manuscripts have ho Theos for Jesus in those two verses I gave. There is no getting around that fact.

Please, address and provide a refutation of each of the points I made in my previous post. Simply repeating the same non-answers is poor form.

The JW leaders were allowed into the Catholic archives in the 60,s or 70,s- They came out with proof that the three witness bearers were not-The Father, son and holy spirit as the Greek Lexicons have. The spirit, water and blood is correct-Many translations changed that in their bibles once proof was found. Then werent allowed back in to prove more errors. There are many errors-to mislead by satans will, because Jesus was never with that religion. Their bloodguilt alone has amassed to the heavens.

 

[Free]

The JW leaders were allowed into the Catholic archives in the 60,s or 70,s- They came out with proof that the three witness bearers were not-The Father, son and holy spirit as the Greek Lexicons have. The spirit, water and blood is correct-Many translations changed that in their bibles once proof was found. Then werent allowed back in to prove more errors. There are many errors-to mislead by satans will, because Jesus was never with that religion. Their bloodguilt alone has amassed to the heavens.

I agree with you on the translation of the Spirit, the water, and the blood, but I very much doubt that the "JW leaders" had anything to do with it. They don't even provide a list of who was on the translation committee. Every other Bible translation provides the list, so all the other scholars can see the credentials of those who did the translating. The only reason to not provide a list is to shield those who did the translating from proper and legitimate scrutinizing. In other words, those behind the NWT likely had little to no qualifications for translating the Hebrew and the Greek.

But, once again, you have avoided answer my points. So, I will ask them again, with an additional one that have previously avoided:

1) The application of ho Theos to Jesus by the NWT.
2) The insertion of "other" in Col 1:16-17 in the NWT which contradicts John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 in the NWT.
3) How, if Jesus is a created being, if he came into existence, "all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence," as the NWT states. You can't have it both ways--either Jesus came into existence and John is wrong, and the NWT is wrong, or John is right and Jesus never came into existence because he has always existed.
4) If the Word was "a god," then JWs are polytheists. Either there is only one God, or you have more than one.

I found something interesting to backup what I've been saying about point 1)--that ho Theos is applied to Jesus. The Kingdom Interlinear Greek Translation itself proves what I have said. Look at Matt 1:23 and John 20:28:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/matthew/1/

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/john/20/

How is it that it disagrees with you and agrees with me? Who has been lying to you?

 

[keiw1]

I agree with you on the translation of the Spirit, the water, and the blood, but I very much doubt that the "JW leaders" had anything to do with it. They don't even provide a list of who was on the translation committee. Every other Bible translation provides the list, so all the other scholars can see the credentials of those who did the translating. The only reason to not provide a list is to shield those who did the translating from proper and legitimate scrutinizing. In other words, those behind the NWT likely had little to no qualifications for translating the Hebrew and the Greek.

But, once again, you have avoided answer my points. So, I will ask them again, with an additional one that have previously avoided:

1) The application of ho Theos to Jesus by the NWT.
2) The insertion of "other" in Col 1:16-17 in the NWT which contradicts John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 in the NWT.
3) How, if Jesus is a created being, if he came into existence, "all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence," as the NWT states. You can't have it both ways--either Jesus came into existence and John is wrong, and the NWT is wrong, or John is right and Jesus never came into existence because he has always existed.
4) If the Word was "a god," then JWs are polytheists. Either there is only one God, or you have more than one.

I found something interesting to backup what I've been saying about point 1)--that ho Theos is applied to Jesus. The Kingdom Interlinear Greek Translation itself proves what I have said. Look at Matt 1:23 and John 20:28:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/matthew/1/

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/john/20/

How is it that it disagrees with you and agrees with me? Who has been lying to you?

I told you error calls Jesus HoTheos if its there. I told you a god does not make that one God because satan is called Theos at 2 Cor 4:4. It means has godlike qualities. God did all the powerful works through Jesus-Acts 2:22, 1Cor 8:5-6
I put Ho Theos in my bing search--It clearly states-Only the Father is called that in the NT.
The translators of the NWT had holy spirit-they needed nothing else.

 

[Free]

I told you error calls Jesus HoTheos if its there.

And I provided two links to The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, published by the Watchtower, which clearly shows ho theos used of Jesus. Even the Watchtower proves it is true. Did you look at the links and read the verses I gave? Read Matt 1:23 and John 20:23--it shows the Greek right underneath and you can clearly see ho theos applied to Jesus. It is irrefutable.

Someone is lying to you and it isn't me. The Watchtower and/or perhaps someone at your Kingdom Hall has said things that contradict the NWT and the Watchtower teachings themselves. That's what happens when translators don't know what they're doing--all sorts of errors creep in.

I put Ho Theos in my bing search--It clearly states-Only the Father is called that in the NT.

How do you think I found one of those two verses? I put "ho theos and Jesus" in my search engine and that is one of the verses that came up. Not a single thing said "only the Father is called that in the NT."

The translators of the NWT had holy spirit-they needed nothing else.

That is not how translation has ever worked. And it clearly didn't work well for the NWT, as I have now pointed out three significant contradictions within the NWT, which you continue to avoid addressing. Why is that? Why haven't you responded to my four points?

 

[keiw1]

And I provided two links to The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, published by the Watchtower, which clearly shows ho theos used of Jesus. Even the Watchtower proves it is true. Did you look at the links and read the verses I gave? Read Matt 1:23 and John 20:23--it shows the Greek right underneath and you can clearly see ho theos applied to Jesus. It is irrefutable.

Someone is lying to you and it isn't me. The Watchtower and/or perhaps someone at your Kingdom Hall has said things that contradict the NWT and the Watchtower teachings themselves. That's what happens when translators don't know what they're doing--all sorts of errors creep in.


How do you think I found one of those two verses? I put "ho theos and Jesus" in my search engine and that is one of the verses that came up. Not a single thing said "only the Father is called that in the NT."


That is not how translation has ever worked. And it clearly didn't work well for the NWT, as I have now pointed out three significant contradictions within the NWT, which you continue to avoid addressing. Why is that? Why haven't you responded to my four points?

The whole bible was written by God using holy spirit guiding his words through men.
The kingdom interlinear was written years ago.

 

[Free]

The whole bible was written by God using holy spirit guiding his words through men.
The kingdom interlinear was written years ago.

The autographs, the original writings, which we don't have, we written by men in their own words but inspired by God so that what God wanted written, was written. No translation, including the NWT, was written this way. All we have are copies and copies of copies of the autographs.

Every single translation, including the NWT, must use the manuscript evidence we have available at a given time. To do the translating requires people with significant relevant education and experience--experts. It cannot be done by just anyone, even if they have some relevant education. It appears as though the NWT was done by those without expertise, and so we find some significant errors.

You disagree, but yet you still haven't addressed the four points I provided which prove this to be the case. Why is that? Afraid you'll find out I am speaking the truth? This is literally a matter of life and death, so you would do well to address those points, one by one.