I am a JW, why should I consider becoming a C

[jasoncran]

according to st.augustine. unless you think that all his works are of the devil.

like mohrb is, i was.

no man told me or convinced me via teaching on the trinity.i read about it and prayed on it myself

if we dont have exclusivity then any person who simply says that jesus is the son of god and x is ok.
ie mormonism.

when you accept or deny the trinity you change how the whole picture comes across.

 

[JudaicChristian]

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 [a] god/God."

34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what 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, 'I am God's Son'?

 

[jasoncran]

what then? when as stated earlier in the father and the son being the same thing? both the Father and Jesus are the alpha and the omega?
if one is created then how can the other be eternal when the both say the same thing?

 

[JudaicChristian]

according to st.augustine. unless you think that all his works are of the devil.

like mohrb is, i was.

no man told me or convinced me via teaching on the trinity.i read about it and prayed on it myself

if we dont have exclusivity then any person who simply says that jesus is the son of god and x is ok.
ie mormonism.

when you accept or deny the trinity you change how the whole picture comes across.

I have told you many times that I am a Judaic Christian. There are many congregations that do not believe in Trinitarianism.

The oldest document of Matthew 28 reads like this: 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name. 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

[Mike]

Really, if we ask someone without any faith (an atheist) for their opinion, they from their perspective would say we are all loonies. Faith is complete folly to those who can't open their mind to it.

Of course, they wouldn't believe it, but people who don't have a "horse in the race" could give their interpretation of the story.

I don't believe in the star wars movies... but I can watch them and suggest what the story is supposed to be about, and what points the writers were attempting to make. Many non-muslims read the Qur'an for the stories... without believing it as religious fact. I'm just saying, unless you look at the scriptures TRYING to prove a trinity, I don't believe anyone would see one. Which is why Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism (which are all based on Judeo-christianity to one extent or another) are all monotheist.

Chris, when you say the word "interpretation", it sounds like you're taking about their "understanding", not the "plausibility" of our doctrines. Of course they could understand as we were telling them. Would they find your doctrine easier to understand? Probably. Does that make it more true? Absolutely not. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Something that sounds true to a person, as opposed to something that seems unimaginable, would more likely be something created in the minds of men. God's nature couldn't be imagined in the minds of men. This is what stands out about Christianity. Who would make up such a thing?

However, we see Jesus continually giving his Father all the credit... so we're taking him at his word and following him by worshiping like him. I'm sure you can understand that point of view as well. Difference of opinion, I suppose.

Another person might define Christianity by believing that Jesus was a space alian who performed miracles due to advanced technology, and his planet's coming back in 2012!!!! ... in that case, I don't think either of us would qualify per that definition.

Just depends on what a person thinks is a fair definition. I believe "Following Christ to the best of your ability" makes a person Christian. I don't see why anyone should want to define Christianity by "Accepting a specific doctrine that's not really clear from scripture in the first place."

The thing is, we have plenty of scripture in this thread alone that points toward Jesus acknowledging His deity and writers referring Him as God. In areas where you are putting aside this evidence or where the NWT rewords it to dethrone Him, what can I say? It seems you might be toggling between what I am saying defines a Christian and who will be spend eternity in the presence of God. I believe very much that you need to accept that God lowered Himself and made the ultimate sacrifice for your sins to find salvation, but no one knows the extent of God's Grace. Defining Christianity (and really this is a word we created as people, right?) is much different. We are putting limitations on the definition of a group we call "Christians". This is the term that believers have come to define who we are that believe Jesus to be God Incarnate!

Thanks for responding! I know every time you log on, you have a number of responses from different directions. And you're always pleasant to engage with.

Mike

 

[JudaicChristian]

what then? when as stated earlier in the father and the son being the same thing? both the Father and Jesus are the alpha and the omega?
if one is created then how can the other be eternal when the both say the same thing?

I presume that you are reading that from the KJV. Other bibles have corrected that place in Revelation were Yahshua said he is the Alpha and Omega. Originally that was not written but added later years to support Trinitarianism. Just like the word "Godhead" was also added to scripture to support the notion of Trinitarianism. One of the Popes had this added to scripture: NIV Footnotes:
a.1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century) And the list Trinitarian insertions goes on and on.

 

[Mike]

The council of Nicaea was not the founding of Christianity. Christ was. And even then, quite a few Christians were monotheistic. The divinity of Christ was a heated debate... people were on both sides. The difference is that people who believed that Christ was a second God were the majority, therefore the minority was excommunicated or killed. Eventually a few decades later, it was decided that the Father, Son, and Holy spirit were three "persons" in "one God" as opposed to the "three Gods" they had decided on in the previous council. One famous example was Arius. Look up the "Arian Heresy" some time. It was decided as the "heresy" of not changing one's opinion to the decision of that council by believing Jesus to be a God equal with the Father.

Chris, I meant to address this in my last post, but neglected to do so. Although, my response and yours have been well traveled. My understanding is that the council of Nicaea didn't decide on the actual doctrine of the Trinity. They simply discussed and came to terms on how to make sense of the Truth that they already knew. I could cite documented evidence and you could find something to support your perspective. The nature of the Trinity is still contested, and I agree this is more prominent now because we are more free to do so. Within Christendom, (and you understand I'm not including JW's here) there are very few by comparison that actually reject it. Seventh Day Adventists and individuals might oppose it, but the vast majority do accept it. And this is consistent with the beliefs of early Church beginnings.

I know we'll disagree here.

Mike

 

[Mysteryman]

If you have time, this is a thread I started, that you could look at. I warn you, its long.

Erroneous additons to the Word of God !

And it's almost all unsupported opinion. :gah

Hi Free

No, some can be documented, and others are common sense, if one is walking by the Spirit. There are many erroneous changes and additions, that many have adopted as being a part of the original texts. But the fact remains, that this is just the truth.

 

[Free]

If you have time, this is a thread I started, that you could look at. I warn you, its long.

Erroneous additons to the Word of God !

And it's almost all unsupported opinion. :gah

No, some can be documented, and others are common sense, if one is walking by the Spirit. There are many erroneous changes and additions, that many have adopted as being a part of the original texts. But the fact remains, that this is just the truth.

No, it isn't the truth and much of the arguments are unreasonable and fallacious. It's amazing how much the spiritually superior trump card gets played when all arguments fail.

Anyway, I will discuss this no longer as it is off topic.

Okay. Can you clarify what you mean> What are you trying to say and how is it relevant to this discussion?

It seemed to me that it was being said: Unless you believe in Trinitarianism you can not be a Christian.

I was meaning your discussion of the use of the article--I can't figure out what your argument is.

 

[JudaicChristian]

I was meaning your discussion of the use of the article--I can't figure out what your argument is.

In regards to translation. Example: "God" or "a god." When Greek is translated into English, the scholar decides to use or not to use the article "a" in the translation. In other words, it's an "interpretation" into English and not a translation. That means the defining article "a" should be have been used. This same problem also exist in the translation of Hebrew into English. Yahshua never claimed to be God, but he did claim to be "a god."

 

[Mike]

I was meaning your discussion of the use of the article--I can't figure out what your argument is.

In regards to translation. Example: "God" or "a god." When Greek is translated into English, the scholar decides to use or not to use the article "a" in the translation. In other words, it's an "interpretation" into English and not a translation. That means the defining article "a" should be have been used. This same problem also exist in the translation of Hebrew into English. Yahshua never claimed to be God, but he did claim to be "a god."

John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. John 14



Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18)


The Jews understood well what Jesus was claiming when he spoke of God as his Father, and their reaction was consistent. Later, when Jesus was at Jerusalem, the scenario mentioned above repeated itself when Jesus said:

"I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God. (John 10:30-33)


They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:70)

 

[Free]

I was meaning your discussion of the use of the article--I can't figure out what your argument is.

In regards to translation. Example: "God" or "a god." When Greek is translated into English, the scholar decides to use or not to use the article "a" in the translation. In other words, it's an "interpretation" into English and not a translation. That means the defining article "a" should be have been used. This same problem also exist in the translation of Hebrew into English. Yahshua never claimed to be God, but he did claim to be "a god."

I thought you may have been making that point but I didn't want to jump to a conclusion since it really has no merit. There is no decision on whether or not to use the article--if the article is there it is used. In John 1:1, the article just isn't there, just as it isn't there over 280 times in the NT.

 

[JudaicChristian]

John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. John 14



Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18)


The Jews understood well what Jesus was claiming when he spoke of God as his Father, and their reaction was consistent. Later, when Jesus was at Jerusalem, the scenario mentioned above repeated itself when Jesus said:

"I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God. (John 10:30-33)


They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:70)

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:22
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:

 

[nadab]

I've switched to "we" because I haven't gotten banned yet, so I don't expect to be. Rarely, I'll use "they" referring to JWs because I -am- an individual, and there are a few points where I differ from the standard viewpoint. For example, JWs officially teach that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and that was always the intent. While, personally, I've had my share of problems dealing with ONE woman, and have no interest in attempting a polygamist relationship, I don't think it's inherently contrary to the bible... I just think it's not smart.

Not only is it "not smart", but is contrary to law of marriage, that Jehovah God stipulated "from the beginning." Jesus said it very succinctly: "Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.â€(Matt 19:4-6)

God's original arrangement of marriage, after almost 4000 years of being "off-track", was reiterated by Jesus as between one man and one woman, becoming "one flesh". Any who are part of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and disagrees with the original marriage arrangement, will eventually be expelled. God's moral laws have been cast aside for thousands of years, but Jehovah's Witnesses are adhering to the original marital arrangement that was established in the Garden of Eden, despite the "winds of change" on "sexuality" that are permeating the various religions of Christendom.

 

[JudaicChristian]

John 10:30-33. "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God/a god.

John 17:11[/b]
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:22
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:

 

[Mike]

Mohrb was the first JW I've dealt with at length over a period of time, and I can see how this would get exhausting. All over again, we have to bring up all the scripture pointing to the divinity of Jesus.

sigh...

I imagine if you're around here long enough, you wouldn't have to write anything new. Just cut and paste from all the other discussions. JW's are surrounded by people who give them affirmation to reject 1870 years of Christianity and the Godhood of Jesus. Nothing that we will say will change their minds, unless they are open to seeking and accepting the Truth. I guess you could say I have the same obstacle, except for the fact that I have the True Truth.

 

[happyjoy]

I guess you could say I have the same obstacle, except for the fact that I have the True Truth.

That is the problem. Everyone thinks they have the True Truth, and condemns everyone else for not having the same truth as they do. Truth is individual.

 

[Mike]

Truth is individual.

Actually, that's the problem. Two things can that oppose one another can not both be true. You may not accept it, agree with it or like it, but there is one Truth.

 

[happyjoy]

Truth is individual.

Actually, that's the problem. Two things can that oppose one another can not both be true. You may not accept it, agree with it or like it, but there is one Truth.

What are you saying absolutely oppose each other? The teachings of Jesus and Buddha, or your belief that you have the sole truth or some JW does?

 

[Mike]

I guess you could say I have the same obstacle, except for the fact that I have the True Truth.

This was my attempt at being facetious.

What are you saying absolutely oppose each other? The teachings of Jesus and Buddha

I didn't say this specifically, but now that you mention it...absolutely!

or your belief that you have the sole truth or some JW does?

Either one of does or neither of us do. Not both. Of course I believe Christians do.