John 10:30 isn't a 'trinitarian' text.

Dartman said:

I didn't say anything about his teaching Torah.
Did you actually look at the tread, and see the context of the discussion about Maimonides?

Click to expand...

#72?

It would be nice to know how Rambam got into the discussion to begin with.

Dartman said:

Of course Jesus corrected the Jews, that's the ONLY reason he "answered them"! He most CERTAINLY didn't agree with them! Just like I am "answering" you, and you will "answer" me! IF you and I agree, we will say so! Jesus in NO WAY agreed with them! Your misunderstanding of John 1 doesn't work as a proof text of your theory! John 1 means what it actually SAYS, not what you think it says. God's words were with Him, and define/are Him. God's words came to pass as a flesh and blood baby boy in Bethlehem.

Click to expand...

Again, look at the Jews reaction in John 10:33 - The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." The Jews clearly understood Jesus’ statement as a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus did not correct the Jews by saying, "I did not claim to be God." That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). I have no misunderstanding of John 1:1. It's you who has been deceived. Again, Jesus is God’s Son in the sense that He is God made manifest in human form (John 1:1, 14). In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us. *Crystal clear.

NONE of these texts STATE, EXPLAIN, TEACH OR PREACH "Jesus is God", OR ANY tenet unique to trinitarian theory. EACH of these texts can ONLY be percieved as "supporting the trinity" IF.... and ONLY IF ... you already BELIEVE in the trinity. They simply do NOT state your position.

Click to expand...

They certainly do state my position and teach that Jesus is God. You are just too blind to see the truth. The JW's are so desperate to explain away the truth that Jesus is God that they came up with their own corrupt Bible translation and altered Scripture to fit their false teaching. One example is they changed the Word "was God" to "was a god" in John 1:1. Truly sad. The devil must have been very proud.

The depth of your error is demonstrated by your insertion of [Jesus]. Without that misleading insertion, the text ACTUALLY states what it LITERALLY means. The trinitarian is SO brainwashed, they actually READ "Jesus" instead of "word/logos".... because what the verse actually SAYS doesn't prove their theory.

Click to expand...

The Word was with God and the Word was God (vs. 1) and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (vs. 14) is a crystal clear reference to Jesus. Verses 2-3 also confirm His Deity. Deal with it.

Other passages of Scripture where Jesus is unquestionably called God

Isaiah 7:14 - "A Child Will Be Born And His Name Is Called": "Emanuel: God with us"
Isaiah 9:6 - A Child Will Be Born And His Name Is Called: "Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace"
John 20:28 - Thomas said to Jesus, 'My Lord and My God'
Philippians - 2:6-8 Jesus existed in the form of God
Hebrews 1:8 - Father addresses Son as God

This is merely another classic example of the desperation trinitarians have, such that you will stoop to this kind of "grammar game"!

Click to expand...

You seem to have a lot of anger towards Trinitarians and the fact that "Jesus is God." That raises a red flag!

Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
The text discusses TWO beings, the great God ... AND our Saviour Jesus Christ.
The rest of your examples are similar twisting of text.
The clear and simple texts, you ignore just as hard as you can.

Click to expand...

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Click to expand...

What John 17:3 is saying:

While Jesus walked the earth, he took off the outward robes of deity and put on the robes of a servant. (Phil 2:6-8 + John 13:3-20) Jesus on earth was still "very God" or the "only true God" but he took on a new role of a servant where all His efforts was to direct people to the Father as God and not to Himself. He humbled Himself, avoiding the glory of being God on earth and directing it to the Father alone. In the midst of Jesus' final prayer in the garden just prior to his arrest, we see that such submission was not merely a show while in the presence of man, but a true to the heart submission to the Father. Jesus was not denying he was the "only true God", but was praising the Father as such. the very next words after this verse are: "I glorified Thee on the earth ... now glorify me". Jesus would not sing his own praises! In very simple terms, if Jesus addressed someone else as "man", that does not mean Jesus himself was not a man. Jesus was not creating a point of distinction between Himself and the Father in the expression, "only true God", but between the Father and any other "so called god" like idols. Jesus had lived among the Romans with their many competing gods and Jesus was addressing the Father with these idols in mind.

What John 17:3 is not saying:

The quickest way to see the mistake in the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of John 17:3 is in Eph 4:4-6. ("there is one God and one Lord") If "One God" excludes Jesus from God, then "One Lord" excludes God from being Lord. Yet we know that they share these identical characteristics. Jehovah is not only called the Only true God (John 17:3), but the "Only Saviour" (Isa 43:11; 45:21; Hos 13:4; Jude 25) , "Only King" (Zech 14:9). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then Jesus is also excluded from being a Saviour or King. Conversely, Jesus is called the "Only Teacher, (Matt 23:8,10, Mt 10:24 and Jn 13:13), "Only Master" (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1), and "Only Lord" (Jude 4, Eph 4:4, 1 Cor 8:4,6, Mt 6:24). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then the Father is also excluded from being our Teacher, Master or Lord. - Trinity proof texts: John 17:3

John 20:17 ... go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Click to expand...

In context the word "God" here in 20:17 is referring to the Father. John focuses on the human aspect of Jesus’ identity. In His humanity Jesus was identifying himself with his brothers. Notice He uses the words "My Father and My God." Jesus taught others to say "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9-13) instead of "My Father." By using these words Jesus was saying He was equal to the Father. In John 5:17-18 Jesus says, But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." 18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Jesus calling God "My Father" was a way to proclaim equality with God and the Jews knew this and that's why they wanted to kill Him for blasphemy.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Click to expand...

Again, to be the "Son of God" is be of the same nature as God.

2 Cor 1:2-3 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

Click to expand...

Although Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father, He was willing to become a servant and submit Himself to the Father in His incarnation. In regards to "Lord" Jesus Christ, the phrase King of kings is a title that is applied to God the Father (1 Timothy 6:15), and twice to the Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). Jesus is of the same essence/nature as God the Father.

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Click to expand...

My comments to 2 Corinthians 1:2-3 also apply here.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Click to expand...

Again, by using these words "My God" Jesus was saying He was equal to the Father. In John 5:17-18 Jesus says, But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." 18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Jesus calling God "My Father" was a way to proclaim equality with God and the Jews knew this and that's why they wanted to kill Him for blasphemy.

1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Click to expand...

JW's often cite this passage to prove that Jesus cannot be God. Since the passage reads that for us there is "one God, the Father," and since Jesus is not the Father, he cannot be God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between "one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." The JW's conclude from this verse that since the Father is the "one God," Jesus cannot be God. But by that reasoning, since Jesus is the "one Lord," The Father cannot be Lord, yet the Father is referred to as "Lord" in the OT (Genesis 24:7; 32:9 etc..) and Jesus Christ is referred to as Lord in the NT (Romans 10:9; Philippians 2:11 etc..). Ephesians 4:5 says there is ONE LORD.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Click to expand...

The man Christ Jesus. Jesus, God in the flesh, died for our sins, was buried and rose again from the dead on the third day to provide for us eternal life. That is why He is our mediator. The fact that Jesus was fully man and fully God is a major stumbling block for you when interpreting these passages of Scripture.

You are not fooling anyone with your trickery and false doctrine (except the already fooled). You cannot strip Christ of His Deity and have a "different" Jesus who is not part of the Godhead and expect to be saved. I sincerely hope and pray that you will seriously consider the truth that JESUS IS GOD.

Just as Thomas correctly referred to Jesus as, "my Lord and my God" in John 20:28,
I also correctly refer to Jesus as, "my Lord and my God." Praise the Lord Jesus Christ!

2PhiloVoid said:

No, Jesus explained why his physical, flesh and bones, disproved the pagan superstition they THOUGHT they saw. Jesus was ridiculing that pagan notion, NOT endorsing it. The Scriptures NEVER teach any "immaterial being".

Click to expand...

Indeed they do teach it. It is written all over the Jewish scriptures. Psalm 139 is a good example of a Jewish meditation on God's omnipresence and omniscience.

Jesus is not ridiculing any notion- that is not his purpose, to be philosophical. He is declaring that he himself embodies Israel's God and messianic hopes. The Trinitarian theology articulates that in the Person of Jesus Christ, God and humanity, spirit and matter, are reconciled. That could only happen if Jesus were both true God and true man.

Dartman said:

I understand the theory. The Scriptures NEVER state this. No teacher in the Bible EVER preaches this to any audience .... any where!

Click to expand...

How then are we saved?

FireDragon76 said:

Indeed they do teach it. It is written all over the Jewish scriptures. Psalm 139 is a good example of a Jewish meditation on God's omnipresence and omniscience.

Jesus is not ridiculing any notion- that is not his purpose, to be philosophical. He is declaring that he himself embodies Israel's God and messianic hopes. The Trinitarian theology articulates that in the Person of Jesus Christ, God and humanity, spirit and matter, are reconciled. That could only happen if Jesus were both true God and true man.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76, you've cited some bit as if it quoted from me, but when I hit the link to the supposedly quoted post, I don't find those words there in my post. Where did you get this text? If it's mine, you've got the wrong post, or the wrong person.

Dartman said:

Jesus was only ABLE to sent the spirit, when the Father "gave it him".
John 14:25-26 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in My name, "IT" will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
(gender change is my correction of translator error)

Exactly. They are NOT "co-equal". The son is subject to the Father.

Click to expand...

This is your mistake:

The Difference in Jesus’ Divine Role Does NOT Indicate Inferiority of Nature

There is a frequent assumption, and/or misunderstanding, that unbelievers frequently expresss about the Trinity. As a believer you should be aware of this. James White on occasion says:

Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.

For many who deny the Trinity or the deity of Jesus, it is thought that since Jesus fulfilled a lesser (subordinate) role in his incarnation compared to that of the Father, Jesus must therefore posses a lesser nature.


Those who oppose the deity of Christ often point to Jesus’ submissive remarks about doing the will of his Father. For example, Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I am.” They infer from this that Jesus does not share the same nature with the Father. But this is confusing categories. It ignores the broader context that is talking about their relational roles, not their nature.

Jesus also calls the Father, “My God.” Yet those who oppose the deity of Christ ignore that this is a humble acknowledgment of the incarnate Jesus modeling for us humility and submissiveness (John 20:17). This exalting-affirmation is what we would expect from the Son of God.

Similarly, it is argued, since Jesus is the agent of the Father in many respects such as creation, Jesus cannot be fully God. Regarding the Spirit, they will make the similar false assumption. Since the Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit cannot have the same divine nature as the Father. They will look at these statements and make the fallacious leap that difference in function indicates inferiority of nature.


They also deny the freedom of the Divine persons to choose their roles. Or to put it another way: they assume that to be truly God, the Son and the Spirit must have the exact same roles as the Father in order to share in the same nature.

A simple, but effective, illustration will show that difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature: A husband and wife—as well as children!—will posses different roles in a marriage. Wives are to take on the submissive role, yet this does not indicate that difference in function requires inferiority of nature. Does the wife have a lesser nature than that of the husband? Not according to Christian anthropology. They are both fully human.

Let’s praise God for the incarnation, which itself presupposes a submissive role that brought about our salvation. We do not worship a unipersonal-unitarian God, but worship instead a complementary-trinitarian God.
The Difference in Jesus' Divine Role Does NOT Indicate Inferiority of Nature - Alpha and Omega Ministries

Dartman said:

Maimonides also studied secular subjects like astronomy, medicine, mathematics and philosophy — a medieval “liberal arts” curriculum, so to speak. He was particularly captivated by the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plotinus; their ideas persuaded him that reasoned inquiry was not only reconcilable with Judaism, but in fact its central discipline.
Maimonides (Rambam) and His Texts | My Jewish Learning

His philosophic masterpiece, the Guide of the Perplexed, is a sustained treatment of Jewish thought and practice that seeks to resolve the conflict between religious knowledge and secular. Although heavily influenced by the Neo-Platonized Aristotelianism that had taken root in Islamic circles, it departs from prevailing modes of Aristotelian thought by emphasizing the limits of human knowledge and the questionable foundations of significant parts of astronomy and metaphysics.
Maimonides (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Click to expand...

Judaism does not teach that God has a body and neither does Christianity. You are out of step with both of them.

Dartman said:

No, the mistake here is your attempt to redefine the meaning of "equal".
In context, NO individual that is "subject to" another being, is "equal" to that being.
The entire text you included in your post is a wordy attempt to deny this fact.
The Scriptures CONSISTENTLY and WITHOUT EXCEPTION support Christ's simple statement; "my Father is greater than I".
Jehovah/YHVH is Christ's God! (John 4:22, John 20:17, Eph 1:17, Rev 3:12)

Click to expand...

I can only conclude that you have trouble reading with comprehension.

2PhiloVoid said:

FireDragon76, you've cited some bit as if it quoted from me, but when I hit the link to the supposedly quoted post, I don't find those words there in my post. Where did you get this text? If it's mine, you've got the wrong post, or the wrong person.

Click to expand...

Sorry... I was responding to Dartman and somehow the message got crossed.

Dartman said:

No, the mistake here is your attempt to redefine the meaning of "equal".
In context, NO individual that is "subject to" another being, is "equal" to that being.

Click to expand...

If they freely choose to submit to another, they are equal.

Dartman said:

By believing, and obeying, the actual statements of Scripture.

Click to expand...

So we are saved by our works, and not freely justified by faith alone?

FireDragon76 said:

So we are saved by our works, and not freely justified by faith alone?

Click to expand...

Romans 3:24 - being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 4:2 - For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

*Conclusion: Man is saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Danthemailman said:

Romans 3:24 - being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 4:2 - For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

*Conclusion: Man is saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Click to expand...

It is about doing.
Hebrews 11, examples of faith,
beginning with Abel who after offering a better offer than Kain, recieved testomony that he was righteous,
after a doing,
and also the other examples.

Repentence is a doing, it means to return

Robban said:

It is about doing.
Hebrews 11, examples of faith,
beginning with Abel who after offering a better offer than Kain, recieved testomony that he was righteous,
after a doing,
and also the other examples.

Click to expand...

In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurences that it was "by" or "out of" faith and not faith is in essence, all of these works accomplished. Their faith was genuine and it was shown by their actions (works). So all of these works done in Hebrews 11 were done "by" or "out of" faith, but none of these things are the essence of faith, only the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand! We are saved by faith at it's origin, not at some time later based on the merit of our works (Ephesians 2:8,9). Faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

In regards to Abel, by "out of" faith Abel offered a sacrifice. Abel's faith was evidenced in obedience to God's requirement for sacrifice by which he obtained witness that he was righteous (Hebrews 11:4). His offering substantiated and confirmed his faith (James 2:18). Cain, who was of the evil one, demonstrated an evil heart by evil deeds, while Abel demonstrated a righteous heart by his righteous deeds (1 John 3:12); and that Abel offered his sacrifice by faith and Cain did not. Cain's sacrifice was evidence of his lack of faith. Abel's offering proved something about his faith that was not demonstrated by Cain's offering. You put the cart before the horse.

Repentence is a doing, it means to return

Click to expand...

The Greek word for "repent" is "metanoia" (noun) and "matanoeo" (verb) you see as defined in the Strongs #3340, 3341: to think differently or afterwards, reconsider. After thought, change of mind. We repent in the process of changing our mind and choosing to place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. The Bible also tells us that true repentance will result in a change of actions. Acts 26:20 declares, "I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." This is the fruit of repentance (Matthew 3:8), not the essence of repentance (change of mind).

Danthemailman said:

In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurences that it was "by" or "out of" faith and not faith is in essence, all of these works accomplished. Their faith was genuine and it was shown by their actions (works). So all of these works done in Hebrews 11 were done "by" or "out of" faith, but none of these things are the essence of faith, only the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand! We are saved by faith at it's origin, not at some time later based on the merit of our works (Ephesians 2:8,9). Faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

In regards to Abel, by "out of" faith Abel offered a sacrifice. Abel's faith was evidenced in obedience to God's requirement for sacrifice by which he obtained witness that he was righteous (Hebrews 11:4). His offering substantiated and confirmed his faith (James 2:18). Cain, who was of the evil one, demonstrated an evil heart by evil deeds, while Abel demonstrated a righteous heart by his righteous deeds (1 John 3:12); and that Abel offered his sacrifice by faith and Cain did not. Cain's sacrifice was evidence of his lack of faith. Abel's offering proved something about his faith that was not demonstrated by Cain's offering. You put the cart before the horse.

The Greek word for "repent" is "metanoia" (noun) and "matanoeo" (verb) you see as defined in the Strongs #3340, 3341: to think differently or afterwards, reconsider. After thought, change of mind. We repent in the process of changing our mind and choosing to place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. The Bible also tells us that true repentance will result in a change of actions. Acts 26:20 declares, "I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." This is the fruit of repentance (Matthew 3:8), not the essence of repentance (change of mind).

Click to expand...

That is not as I see it, I would never put my soul (fate of) in a mans hands, ever.

But if this is what floats your boat, then go for it.