What do JW's think of Thomas the Disciple

Der Alte · Aug 23, 2004

True Believer said:
Looks like Mr. Rude is back again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ויפתח יהוה את־פי האתון

Der Alte · Aug 23, 2004

True Believer said:
Yet Trinitarians say it is refering to Jesus as God Almighty

Since you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion, you are playing the nit picking game. I will rephrase what I said. I know you won't, but most reasonable, rational people will, understand.

And OBTW there is no competent Greek scholar who does not recognize that ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου, (Jn 20:28)is direct address. It is in the wrong form to be referring to anyone other than the ο θεος being directly addressed.

Der Alte · Aug 23, 2004

Ratiocination said:
I think you mean theos translates as God, rather than then meaning of the word. So what is implied by the word God? Is it not authority that is served?

Irrelevant what is implied or what is served. I meant what I said θεος means God. θεος has authority. θεος is served.

G2316 θεος theos theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

You have obviously really missed the point

No, you obviously have missed the point. Posting the same old drivel that anti-Trinitarians have been spewing for years. Nothing new, nothing original, nothing informed. It has all been answered countless times.

"I know let's all go over the Anti-Trinitarians-Я-Us and cut and paste some more anti-Trinitarian arguments."

Do you serve a Trinity of Gods, or a Trinity of persons?

Neither, why don't you go find out exactly what Trinitarians believe and when you actually know something, come back here and dicuss it.

I could give you some links but if you were interested in truth you would have already done the homework and could rationally and reasonably discuss the subject, without all the embellishments.

My guess is a Trinity of persons, which is why its incorrect to call Jesus alone God, as you would in effect be calling him the Trinity.

Your guess, as most of your posts, means diddly. You, as with most anti-Trinitarians, don't know what the Trinity is, you won't bother to find out, all you can do is post your half baked aberration of what you think it is. I gave you two good illustrations why your "guess" is meaningless.

Hint: We serve God<period><end of story>

Ratiocination · Aug 23, 2004

Der Alter said:
Irrelevant what is implied or what is served. I meant what I said θεος means God. θεος has authority. θεος is served.

That was the point, someone being called God, implies authority.

Der Alter said:
G2316 θεος theos theh'-os

Der Alter said:
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

Well said! Which means the definite meaning of God in John 20:28 should be taken from the context, not a pre-conceived theology.

Der Alter said:
No, you obviously have missed the point. Posting the same old drivel that anti-Trinitarians have been spewing for years. Nothing new, nothing original, nothing informed. It has all been answered countless times.

Is this your counter argument? If its been answered countless times before than why are you unable to answer it?

Der Alter said:
"I know let's all go over the Anti-Trinitarians-Я-Us and cut and paste some more anti-Trinitarian arguments."

1# Abusive Argumentum ad hominem! I never cut and pasted anything.

Der Alter said:
Ratiocination said:

Do you serve a Trinity of Gods, or a Trinity of persons?

Click to expand...

Der Alter said:
Neither, why don't you go find out exactly what Trinitarians believe and when you actually know something, come back here and dicuss it.

I was asking you, but it appears that even you dont know what to believe!

Der Alter said:
I could give you some links but if you were interested in truth you would have already done the homework and could rationally and reasonably discuss the subject, without all the embellishments.

I find it rather odd that you suggest that Im being irrational or unreasonable when you wont even engage in a proper dialogue with me.

Der Alter said:
Your guess, as most of your posts, means diddly. You, as with most anti-Trinitarians, don't know what the Trinity is, you won't bother to find out, all you can do is post your half baked aberration of what you think it is.

2# Abusive Argumentum ad hominem!

Der Alter said:
I gave you two good illustrations why your "guess" is meaningless.

And I said that you had obviously really missed the point after I read your Good illustrations, but you obviously dont see the irrelevance of such statements.

Der Alter said:
When God is addressed as יהוה צבאות/YHWH of Hosts, in the O.T. did He cease being Creator, Savior, Deliverer, etc.? When Jesus addressed The Father, in the N.T., did He cease being Creator, etc.? Since the answer is no then it is not necesasry to jump thorugh all the inane hoops you are suggesting about addressing Jesus, "sharer of essence", blah, blah, blah.

These statements dont address my arguments at all, my issue is that for you to maintain your monotheist claims, you have to be careful of what you call the persons of the Trinity, calling the persons Saviour, Creator or Deliverer does not affect your claims, however, if you call Jesus God, and the Father God, and the Holy Spirit God, without further qualifying what you mean by those statements, then that will undoubtedly lead to polytheism. Of course you cant further qualify such statements because the Bible never qualifies them the way you do, the Bible never speaks of the Son as the second person of a consubstantial triad, it never speaks of the Father as the first person of a Triad, these are all additional/extra unbiblical statements that you bring to the text rather than letting the Bible/God tell you what to believe.

All John 20:28 arguably calls Jesus is God, nothing more. So is Jesus a God within the Trinity or what? Or, could this verse simply be showing Jesus divinity? IMO the latter is far more acceptable for both our doctrines.

Der Alter said:
Hint: We serve God<period><end of story>

Great! So do I.

Fallacies so far;

Der Alter = 2 - Ad Hominem. ------ Ratiocination = 0

mawuvi · Aug 23, 2004

We have been over this many times Jesus is God, the Bible calls him mighty God. However he is not ALMIGHTY GOD.

In line with this why would anyone be reading too much into Thomas calling Jesus God? Unless Trinitarian = someone who is inherently dishonest and speaks with a forked tongue.

lared · Aug 25, 2004

Jesus said to Peter....."Get behind me Satan!"

So, then, from one verse, we are to assume that Peter was in actuality Satan?

supergal · Aug 26, 2004

lared said:
Jesus said to Peter....."Get behind me Satan!"

So, then, from one verse, we are to assume that Peter was in actuality Satan?

Either Satan or one or several of his henchemen, demons, were in Peter motivating him to say what he said. The only way demons can't tempt us, and Peter is to be in us, especially our brains, to make temptations so appealing. We all have demons in us, none of us are demon free yet. We have the spirit of god, angelic spirits, and demonic spirits all vieing for our attention. they are all in us working thier own goals. who we respond to is up to us. That's why Jesus said we are slaves to whomsoever we choose to obey.
If demons weren't in us some way they wouldn't know what we are thinking, the only way demons or satan knows what we are thinking is by being in our brains listening to us.The more we choose to listen to angelic spirits, and the holy spirit instead of demonic spirits, the less and less we have of them. Anyone, christian or non christian, who engages in fornication, stealing, lieing, cheating, murder, etc. will have lots of demons.

much agape.

d

supergal · Aug 26, 2004

mawuvi said:
, the Bible calls him mighty God. .

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. " Isaiah 9:6

Looks to me like this verse says his name is "the mighty God". Lots of Mexicans are named Jesus, are they Yahweh the savior because their name shall be called Jesus?

:groupray:

let us love one another.

supergal · Aug 26, 2004

So Jesus is both God and a person of God? But the God Jesus is isn't the God God the Father is? So when Thomas called Jesus "My God" he was refering to God the son? In which case, god the son is God? But God the son is a person of God. that would mean that each person of God is God. Or each person of God is the God that they are a person of? correct? Very confusing. Or Jesus might have said correctly, "I am a person of God and also I am the God I am a person of, My Father is a person of the same God I am a person of and he too is the God he is a person of. I'm about to blow a fuse here. I better quit.

much agape

Der Alte · Aug 26, 2004

supergal said:
So Jesus is both God and a person of God? But the God Jesus is isn't the God God the Father is? So when Thomas called Jesus "My God" [/color]he was refering to God the son? In which case, god the son is God? But God the son is a person of God. that would mean that each person of God is God. Or each person of God is the God that they are a person of? correct? Very confusing. Or Jesus might have said correctly, "I am a person of God and also I am the God I am a person of, My Father is a person of the same God I am a person of and he too is the God he is a person of. I'm about to blow a fuse here. I better quit.

Oh, look another anti-Trintarian that doesn't have a clue what the Trinity is or what Trinitarians believe but can only post their lock step, knee jerk, distortions that their equally uninformed teachers and preachers tell them.

Der Alte · Aug 27, 2004

G2316 θεος theos theh'-os

Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

ratiocination said:
Well said! Which means the definite meaning of God in John 20:28 should be taken from the context, not a pre-conceived theology.

And another knee jerk, lock step, by rote response. First you are forgetting your argument was that θεος meant authority. I have proved that is not supported by N.T. Greek resources. Second, the definite meaning of θεος in John 20:28 is taken from the original manuscripts, which states ο θεος. That letter, ο, is the definite article, the in English. Here we have a devout Jew addressing Jesus as The God of me. Whenever a Jew said ο θεος/The God, he was referring to YHWH, the creator.

No, you obviously have missed the point. Posting the same old drivel that anti-Trinitarians have been spewing for years. Nothing new, nothing original, nothing informed. It has all been answered countless times.

Is this your counter argument? If its been answered countless times before than why are you unable to answer it?

The reason I do not answer this inane question is because you are not really seeking information. You do not want to know anything, this is just baiting. You think you have this super argument that completely refutes the Trinity. You have been around this forum for quite some time and I am certain you have seen the answers to your questions before, right there. But you are ignoring everything that has ever been said and reposting the same old questions.

"I know let's all go over the Anti-Trinitarians-Я-Us and cut and paste some more anti-Trinitarian arguments."

1# Abusive Argumentum ad hominem! I never cut and pasted anything.

Implying that you cut and pasted your tired old worn out questions and assertions is not an ad hom. Even if I had made an outright assertion you cut and pasted your answer from "Anti-Trinitarians-Я-Us" it would not be an ad hom. An ad hom would be if I said your post was wrong because of some personal characteristic unrelated to the topic. For example, "Because you are six foot tall and wear suits your answer/statement is wrong."

You never cut and pasted anything? I can type "Refuting the Trinity" in my browser and find bunches of websites saying the exact same things you are saying. As I said nothing you have posted is original.

Do you serve a Trinity of Gods, or a Trinity of persons?

Neither, why don't you go find out exactly what Trinitarians believe and when you actually know something, come back here and discuss it.

I was asking you, but it appears that even you dont know what to believe!

I know what I believe and I answered this before. Here it is again. We serve God<period><end of story>

I could give you some links but if you were interested in truth you would have already done the homework and could rationally and reasonably discuss the subject, without all the embellishments.

I find it rather odd that you suggest that Im being irrational or unreasonable when you wont even engage in a proper dialogue with me.

I am engaging in a proper dialogue with you. I did not say you were "being irrational or unreasonable." You can be completely rational and reasonable and still not be able to discuss this subject rationally and reasonably because you either, are not knowledgeable, or you are feigning lack of knowledge. I think the latter. As with most unorthodox who come here, you seem incapable of recognizing the difference.

It is crystal clear you have false presuppositions about the Trinity. You, quite evidently, have done nothing to verify or disprove those presuppositions, although you have been posting on a Trinitarian forum for several months.

Your guess, as most of your posts, means diddly. You, as with most anti-Trinitarians, don't know what the Trinity is, you won't bother to find out, all you can do is post your half baked aberration of what you think it is..

2# Abusive Argumentum ad hominem!

Once again knee jerk response. I said nothing about you personally. The concept of Trinity you have alluded to thus far is half baked. If you are going to make assertions and statements about the Trinity then at least have the integrity to read something authoritative and make accurate statements.

I gave you two good illustrations why your "guess" is meaningless.

And I said that you had obviously really missed the point after I read your Good illustrations, but you obviously dont see the irrelevance of such statements.

Here is my response again. Let's see if it is irrelevant.

When God is addressed as

יהוה צבאות/YHWH of Hosts, in the O.T. did He cease being Creator, Savior, Deliverer, etc.? When Jesus addressed The Father, in the N.T., did He cease being Creator, etc.? Since the answer is no then it is not necessary to jump through all the inane hoops you are suggesting about addressing Jesus, "sharer of essence", blah, blah, blah.

I have identified some of God's characteristics. The Trinitarian nature of God is another characteristic. The fact that I do or don't acknowledge any particular characteristic any time I speak to or about God has no affect on God's nature.

These statements dont address my arguments at all, my issue is that for you to maintain your monotheist claims, you have to be careful of what you call the persons of the Trinity, calling the persons Saviour, Creator or Deliverer does not affect your claims, however, if you call Jesus God, and the Father God, and the Holy Spirit God, without further qualifying what you mean by those statements, then that will undoubtedly lead to polytheism.

Neither affects my monotheistic claims. I have to qualify nothing. Nothing I believe or practice can lead to polytheism. The fact that you refuse to even make the slightest effort to become knowledgeable or understand the Trinity, although you have been posting on a Trinitarian forum for several months, has absolutely no relevance, to the Trinity or the doctrine.

Trinitiarians do not have to be careful what they call God. Here is why.

Of course you cant further qualify such statements because the Bible never qualifies them the way you do, the Bible never speaks of the Son as the second person of a consubstantial triad, it never speaks of the Father as the first person of a Triad, these are all additional/extra unbiblical statements that you bring to the text rather than letting the Bible/God tell you what to believe.

I have no need to qualify anything. I have never spoken of the Son as the second person of a triad. Nor have I ever spoke of the Father as the first person of a triad. I have never used the word Triad to describe God because Trinity is not a triad.

You have never demonstrated any understanding of the the Biblical Trinity, therefore you have never demonstrated any additional/extra unbiblical statements.

All John 20:28 arguably calls Jesus is God, nothing more. So is Jesus a God within the Trinity or what? Or, could this verse simply be showing Jesus divinity? IMO the latter is far more acceptable for both our doctrines.

Please dont make assumptions about what is acceptable to Trinitarian doctrine since you have not shown that you even understand what the Trinity doctrine is. In Jn 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus much more that God He called Him "The God of me." And with this statement you are the one preaching polytheism. Does John 20:28 refer to Jesus' divinity? What is divinity if not God?

Fallacies so far;
Der Alter = 2 - Ad Hominem. ------ Ratiocination = 0

No fallacies for me but several red herring fallacies for you.

Der Alte · Aug 27, 2004

mawuvi said:
We have been over this many times Jesus is God, the Bible calls him mighty God. However he is not ALMIGHTY GOD.

In line with this why would anyone be reading too much into Thomas calling Jesus God? Unless Trinitarian = someone who is inherently dishonest and speaks with a forked tongue.

If Jesus is God but not Almighty God that makes two Gods and that is polytheism.

Thomas didn't just call Jesus, "God" but "The God of me." Thomas was a devout jew, to whom was a Jew referring when he said "The God?"

mawuvi · Aug 27, 2004

supergal said:
I better quit.

much agape

I agree I also better quit while the going is good. Whew the number of times we have been over this someone would have got their Ph. D on the subject by now

Ratiocination · Aug 27, 2004

Der Alter said:
And another knee jerk, lock step, by rote response. First you are forgetting your argument was that θεος meant authority. I have proved that is not supported by N.T. Greek resources. Second, the definite meaning of θεος in John 20:28 is taken from the original manuscripts, which states ο θεος. That letter, ο, is the definite article, the in English. Here we have a devout Jew addressing Jesus as The God of me. Whenever a Jew said ο θεος/The God, he was referring to YHWH, the creator.

Your arguments are contradictory. Is Jesus the totality of the Godhead, as you seem to think here, or is he a part of it, as you further go on to argue in the rest of your post.

Can you put your cartoon view of God into words? It just you seem to be skirting the issue.

Der Alter said:
I know what I believe and I answered this before. Here it is again. We serve God<period><end of story>

Which one? There are many! Heres mine - 1Corinthians 8:5,6

Der Alter said:
I have identified some of God's characteristics. The Trinitarian nature of God is another characteristic. The fact that I do or don't acknowledge any particular characteristic any time I speak to or about God has no affect on God's nature.

Der Alter said:

Using characteristics of God like Creator, Savoir or deliverer to describe all persons of the Godhead is fine for a Trinitarian, but to refer to just one of the persons as The God, IS saying that that one is the Trinity. Which cant be what Thomas meant.

Der Alter said:
You think you have this super argument that completely refutes the Trinity.

Ive never said that, my point is, and has always been, that John 20:28 cannot be an expression of your doctrine, it falsely worded.

Der Alter said:
You never cut and pasted anything? I can type "Refuting the Trinity" in my browser and find bunches of websites saying the exact same things you are saying. As I said nothing you have posted is original.

No, I never pasted anything. As I said Im not trying to refute the Trinity, just giving my opinion on John 20:28.

Der Alte · Aug 27, 2004

Ratiocination said:
Your arguments are contradictory. Is Jesus the totality of the Godhead, as you seem to think here, or is he a part of it, as you further go on to argue in the rest of your post.

You saying my arguments are contradictory does not make it so. Is Jesus the totality of the Godhead. . .? See my next response.

Can you put your cartoon view of God into words? It just you seem to be skirting the issue.

Sure, but you still wont understand it. This is known as cognitive dissonance. The Father is God but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but the Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father. And before you even think about some knee jerk answer, Its not logical. Read,
[bible]Isaiah 55:9[/bible]

Which one? There are many! Heres mine - 1Corinthians 8:5,6

If you think there are many gods then your are a polytheist. There is only one God! 1 Cor 8:5,6, that is fine. Does you Bible only have 2 verses? My Bible has 31,172 verses. All you have to do now is harmonize these 2 verses with the rest of the Bible. Your 2 out-of-context proof texts were written by Paul. Lets look at a few more verses written by him.
[bible]Romans 9:5[/bible]
[bible]Titus 2:13[/bible]
[bible]Colossians 2:9[/bible]
[bible]Acts 20:28[/bible]
[bible]1 Timothy 3:16[/bible]

NET Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Using characteristics of God like Creator, Savoir or deliverer to describe all persons of the Godhead is fine for a Trinitarian, but to refer to just one of the persons as The God, IS saying that that one is the Trinity. Which cant be what Thomas meant.

Wrong! You do not know what the Trinity is so you cannot say what does or does not refer to it. Other than what Thomas said, you cant possibly know what he meant. You do not know Greek so you cant even read and understand what he said in the original language. Therefore all you are doing is twisting what Thomas said to make it fit your presuppositions. The Bible does not fit your false doctrine so the Bible must be wrong.

Read my explanation and look at the diagram, the Father is The God, the only one there is, but the Father is not The Son or the Holy Spirit, The Son is The God, the only one there is, but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is The God, the only one there is, but the Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father. God is not a human being restricted or constrained by all the so-called laws humankind is bound by, the law of gravity, reason, physics, common sense, etc. Is 55:9

Ive never said that, my point is, and has always been, that John 20:28 cannot be an expression of your doctrine, it falsely worded.

I have studied Greek, and you have not. I have several Greek resources in my personal library, TDNT, BAGD, Louw-Nida, and some grammars. You cannot clearly enunciate what the Trinity doctrine is, therefore you cannot state what can or cannot be an expression of it. And you certainly cant tell if Jn 20:28 is falsely worded for the Trinity doctrine. The church from the very earliest records has taught as I have been posting. Anti-Trinitarianism has only been around for about 100 years or so.

No, I never pasted anything. As I said Im not trying to refute the Trinity, just giving my opinion on John 20:28.

When you have studied Greek and know Greek grammar then your opinion about Jn 20:28 might have some weight.

Ratiocination · Aug 27, 2004

Der Alter said:
Rat said:

Your arguments are contradictory. Is Jesus the totality of the Godhead, as you seem to think here, or is he a part of it, as you further go on to argue in the rest of your post.

Click to expand...

Der Alter said:
You saying my arguments are contradictory does not make it so. Is Jesus the totality of the Godhead. . .? See my next response.

Im looking but still cant see it!

Der Alter said:
Rat said:

Can you put your cartoon view of God into words? It just you seem to be skirting the issue.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you still wont understand it. This is known as cognitive dissonance. The Father is God but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but the Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father. And before you even think about some knee jerk answer, Its not logical. Read,

Knee jerk answer; so if all are referred to as God/s, thats polytheism! Where in your explanation could I say its illogical? I cant, youre saying all three are God, but you havent said who, or what, God is! Is The God all of these together, or can each person separately be called The God? I need to see from scripture where you get your licence to change the phrase, The God, from in one case meaning one of the persons of the Godhead, to next meaning the entire Godhead.

Isaiah 55:9 said:
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Do you hold that this scripture implies God is illogical?

Der Alter said:
Rat said:

Which one? There are many! Heres mine - 1Corinthians 8:5,6

Click to expand...

Der Alter said:
If you think there are many gods then your are a polytheist. There is only one God! 1 Cor 8:5,6, that is fine. Does you Bible only have 2 verses? My Bible has 31,172 verses. All you have to do now is harmonize these 2 verses with the rest of the Bible. Your 2 out-of-context proof texts were written by Paul. Lets look at a few more verses written by him.

If you dont think there are many gods then you need to read the Bible one more time.

What 1cor 8:5,6 shows is that, yes, there are many other gods, Jesus included, so where does that leave your list of verses that fit in beautifully with my theology? You see Der, if you think Jesus being referred to as God, makes him equal with the father than your denying scripture like 1cor 8:5,6 which clearly states which God a Christian should worship, the father.

Der Alter said:
Wrong! You do not know what the Trinity is so you cannot say what does or does not refer to it.

#3 Abusive Ad Hominem.

Der Alter said:
Other than what Thomas said, you cant possibly know what he meant. You do not know Greek so you cant even read and understand what he said in the original language.

#4 Abusive Ad Hominem.

Der Alter said:
Therefore all you are doing is twisting what Thomas said to make it fit your presuppositions. The Bible does not fit your false doctrine so the Bible must be wrong.

Ive never said the Bible is wrong, Im showing you how your POOR use of it is wrong.

Der Alter said:
Read my explanation and look at the diagram, the Father is The God, the only one there is but He is not The Son or the Holy Spirit, The Son is The God, the only one there is, but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is The God, the only one there is, but the Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father. God is not a human being restricted or constrained by all the so-called laws humankind is bound by, the law of gravity, reason, physics, common sense, etc.

Great! So what is the Trinity called?

Der Alter said:
I have studied Greek, and you have not.

#5 Abusive Ad Hominem.

Der Alter said:
I have several Greek resources in my personal library, TDNT, BAGD, Louw-Nida, and some grammars.

Perhaps they could help you then der! See if they say what the Trinity is called.

Der Alter said:
You cannot clearly enunciate what the Trinity doctrine is,

Well lets face it der, neither can you!

Der Alter said:
therefore you cannot state what can or cannot be an expression of it. And you certainly cant tell if Jn 20:28 is falsely worded for the Trinity doctrine. The church from the very earliest records has taught as I have been posting. Anti-Trinitarianism has only been around for about 100 years or so.

well lets see, the Father is called the God, sos the Son and the HS, and oops sos the Totality of the Trinity.

Der Alter said:
When you have studied Greek and know Greek grammar then your opinion about Jn 20:28 might have some weight.

6# Abusive Ad Hominem.

Der Alte · Aug 27, 2004

Ratiocination said:
If you dont think there are many gods then you need to read the Bible one more time.

What 1cor 8:5,6 shows is that, yes, there are many other gods, Jesus included, so where does that leave your list of verses that fit in beautifully with my theology? You see Der, if you think Jesus being referred to as God, makes him equal with the father than your denying scripture like 1cor 8:5,6 which clearly states which God a Christian should worship, the father.

As I said my Bible has 31,172 verse your Bible only has your few pet verses. Does Paul in 1 Cor 8:5, say there are many gods or that there are many things that are called God? Read vs. 4 very carefully there is no God but one. But there are many things called god, vs 5. Please do lecture me further on what the Bible says.

You need to learn what constitutes an ad hominem argument. Proving you wrong is not an ad hom, no matter how many times you post it. I think that is just an excuse because you cant respond.

[bKJV 1Co 8:4[/b] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.

NIV 1Co 8:4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

NASB 1Co 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

NET 1Co 8:4 With regard then to eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that "an idol in this world is nothing," and that "there is no God but one

supergal · Aug 27, 2004

Der Alter said:
Oh, look another anti-Trintarian that doesn't have a clue what the Trinity is or what Trinitarians believe but can only post their lock step, knee jerk, distortions that their equally uninformed teachers and preachers tell them.

Well that statement of yours certainly clears up any confusion. Thanks.
much agape

supergal · Aug 27, 2004

Der Alter said:
Sure, but you still wont understand it. This is known as cognitive dissonance. The Father is God but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but the Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father. And before you even think about some knee jerk answer, Its not logical. Read,
Isaiah 55:9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

.

.

Ok, I found an answer. It don't make sense is your answer. why couldn't you just come right out and say that? why did you have load your response with tons of abusive statements before you finally stated the obvious?

"cognitive dissonance (kŏgʹnĭ-tĭv dĭsʹə-nəns) noun
Psychology.
A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat. "micorsoft bookshelf 99.

Sounds like cognitive dissonance might be the answer to my questions.

.

Imblessed · Aug 27, 2004

JW's will say there is only ONE God to disprove the trinity, then turn around and say there are MANY Gods to disprove the trinity.

Cannot have it both ways---ONE God or Many Gods?? Which is it???

I'm pretty sick of the whole "the bible says there are many gods" argument, myself. The bible does not say that---the bible says there are many things/people/etc that are more important to mankind than God, and are treated as God should be treated---but that there is only ONE GOD.

When the bible talks about all these other "God's", it is clearly saying that people will worship just about anything---self, money, other men, power, etc etc and will treat these things as "their God", meaning that their life revolves around it--- but there is only ONE REAL GOD and that is YHWH. And YHWH is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What do JW's think of Thomas the Disciple

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Senior Member

theGuide

Well-Known Member

supergal

Guest

supergal

Guest

supergal

Guest

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

theGuide

Senior Member

Attachments

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Senior Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

supergal

Guest

supergal

Guest

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage

Similar threads