one verse for the trinity?

[WarriorAngel]

Ok, so what about this...

John 8:12 - Jesus says "I am the light of the world." - 1 John 1:5 - God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.

We can do a few at a time if you like. And the next one too.

John 13:13 - Jesus says, "You call me Teacher and Lord and you are right for so I AM."

 

[The Gregorian]

Ok, so what about this...

John 8:12 - Jesus says "I am the light of the world." - 1 John 1:5 - God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.

We can do a few at a time if you like. And the next one too.

John 13:13 - Jesus says, "You call me Teacher and Lord and you are right for so I AM."

1: Yes, Jesus can be described as "light" ... so can God. This doesn't mean they are "two persons of one being." Fire can be described as light. So can many other things.

2: I assume you're pointing to the fact that this translation capitalizes "AM" for some reason, you're suggesting that the term "I AM" is what God said through the burning bush?

... your ealize "ego eimi" or "I am" is the basis for ANY sentence in the first person singular? For example: "I am sitting." "I am drinking milk." Jesus was admitting to be a teacher and lord... which he is. But saying he "is" teacher and lord isn't the same as saying "I am God."

 

[Gareth]

Having glanced through Warrior's list of Scripture I just sadly shake my head. Talk about trying to force a square peg into a round hole. This is why some leave the Catholic faith or as one observed when becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses, that he had been lied to for over 30 years. Twisting Scripture to make something fit is a fine art, and some do it very well. You can read quotes such as the ones above and it seems to fit. Read it in context and you get a different answer.

Isaiah 48:17 clearly is talking about Jehovah and His dealings with the Jews, the surrounding verses confirm this. How about the Acts 3:14 verse. Clearly it is talking about Jesus. Is it making Jesus and Jehovah one and the same? No it isn't. If you look into the context you will find two distinct people. Look at verse 13, "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom you, for your part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate's face, when he had decided to release him. (Now verse 14) Yes, you disowned that holy and righteous one, and you asked for a man, a murderer, to be freely granted to you. (Verse 15) Whereas you you killed the Chief Agent of Life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses." Are we talking of one individual person here or two? When read in context as opposed to how it was originally proposed a completely different conclusion is reached.

As so many verses have been used, the world is my oyster, so to speak. The verse at Isaiah 45:23 is once again clearly talking about Jehovah God. Once again the surrounding verses (the context) supports this. Now to Phil. 2:10-11. Yes it does talk about in the name of Jesus every knee shall bend and so on. But wait! What does verse 9 say? "For this very reason also God exalted him and gave him a superior position and kindly gave hin the name that is above every other name."

Now verse 9 raises some very interesting questions. How could Jesus if being already part of a Godhead be given something? Surely no title or position is beyond him, is it? Yet verse 9 states he was given two things by God when Jesus had returned to heaven after dying (impossible for part of a Godhead to do?) and being raised up from the dead by Jehovah God. How was it that this action is mentioned at all? If Jesus was being spoken of in Isaiah how is it that knees weren't bending in heaven towards him before he came to earth? Maybe because he isn't part of a Godhead. Also he came to do not his will but of Him who sent him. In this way once Jesus returned to heaven could he be exalted to a superior position and given that name. Further 1Cor. 15:20-28 gives another reason why Jesus is not part of a Godhead when it tells us that when in the course of time Jesus has done all that God wants him to do, hands back the Kingdom to his Father and then subjects himself to the Father, which again is hardly the actions of a co-equal and co-eternal being.

How on earth can people go on being taught the lies that they are being taught as in the case of some here trying to prove that Jesus and his Father are equal? Are they so blind to the proof they are not or is it something else? We will see very soon just what everyone's work actually is, and whether God showers them with His blessings or not.

 

[WarriorAngel]

1: Yes, Jesus can be described as "light" ... so can God. This doesn't mean they are "two persons of one being." Fire can be described as light. So can many other things.

2: I assume you're pointing to the fact that this translation capitalizes "AM" for some reason, you're suggesting that the term "I AM" is what God said through the burning bush?

... your ealize "ego eimi" or "I am" is the basis for ANY sentence in the first person singular? For example: "I am sitting." "I am drinking milk." Jesus was admitting to be a teacher and lord... which he is. But saying he "is" teacher and lord isn't the same as saying "I am God."

How can jesus be equal to God if He is not God?
Therein lies your conundrum.

Not only did He say I Am, BUT - He agreed He was Lord...
DID Jesus say call NO MAN Teacher, Father....???
Why did He accept it if you so staunchly uphold that to mean no one be called father?
YET Jesus calls Himself LORD and Teacher. Both are the names HE gave to God. And He is God.

You dont get the connection, do ya?

I have also heard it said that He says 'no one is good but God'...then wait a minute....



Luke 17:18 - Jesus asks why the other nine lepers did not come back to give praise to Him, God, except the Samaritan leper.



Deut. 32:43 - rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him - Heb. 1:6 - the "Him" is Jesus the Son.

WORSHIP HIM...only God is worshipped.

 

[Gareth]

How can Jesus be equal to God if he is not God? It's a simple answer and Jesus provided it on many occaisions. The answer is he isn't equal to God nor is he God's equal. He has never sought equality, but, time and again said he had come to do the will of the One who had sent him. The Jews weren't expecting God to appear on the earth at the designated time, but one from God. That is why Andrew ran to Peter to exclaim, "We have found the Messiah", not, "We have found God." The Bible fails to support the trinity. Those to whom pride can be replaced with humility and accept that years of tradition and ritual and festivities that they have gone along with may find that these have no place within true worship.

However certain forms of Christianity has shed innocent blood by the tens of thousands. "God knows those who are his own," said one army General shortly before a town containing non-combatants and combatants alike was put to the torch. History records that this is among some of the actions that Christianity has done to many in years gone by when circumstances afforded it. Even in recent years clergy have roused mobs against other Christians to do them harm. A Christ-like act? I think not, and I'm sure God will have an accounting with those ones. When have you ever heard of Jehovah's Witnesses rousing up mobs to beat up other people of different faiths? It's never happened, yet Jehovah's Witnesses and other faiths have been and still are routinely persecuted by Governments and clergy backed action. All because of our continued refusal to accept a tradition that men started after the death of the Apostles.

When all Scripture that is put up as evidence of a triune deity is read in context, the opposite becomes evident. It's odd that the Pagan world held on to triune deities long before supposed Christians took one on board for itself. It's not the only thing these Christians took on that Pagans had worshipped. The truth has been over centuries diluted with Pagan filth. And this is what some allow themselves to worship without question. Can anyone not see the danger they are putting themselves in?

 

[2ducklow]

How can Jesus be equal to God if he is not God? It's a simple answer and Jesus provided it on many occaisions. The answer is he isn't equal to God nor is he God's equal. He has never sought equality, but, time and again said he had come to do the will of the One who had sent him. The Jews weren't expecting God to appear on the earth at the designated time, but one from God. That is why Andrew ran to Peter to exclaim, "We have found the Messiah", not, "We have found God." The Bible fails to support the trinity. Those to whom pride can be replaced with humility and accept that years of tradition and ritual and festivities that they have gone along with may find that these have no place within true worship. Christianity has shed innocent blood by the tens of thousands. "God knows those who are his own," said one army General shortly before a town containing non-combatants and combatants alike was put to the torch. Would you have us killed if it were still possible to do so? We are in your eyes Heretics because we fail to acknowledge among other things the trinity. History records that this is what the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith has done to many in years gone by when circumstances afforded it. Even in recent years clergy have roused mobs against other Christians to do them harm. A Christ-like act? I think not, and I'm sure God will have an accounting with those ones. When have you ever heard that Jehovah's Witnesses have roused mobs to beat up monks, nuns, priests and other Catholic faithful? All because of our continued refusal to accept a tradition that men started after the death of the Apostles. When all Scripture that is put up as evidence of a triune deity is read in context, the opposite becomes evident. It's odd that the Pagan world held on to triune deities long before supposed Christians took one on board for itself. It's not the only thing these Christians took on that Pagans had worshipped. The truth has been over centuries diluted with Pagan filth. And this is what some allow themselves to worship. Can anyone not see the danger they are putting themselves in?

the bible says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of god. I believe that John Calvin was a man of God used by god to bring more truth to God's people, I also believe John calvin was used by the devil to torture people to death for rejecting trinity, such as Servetus. No one is without guilt. some have more guilt than others, and those with more power are more susceptable to more dasterdly deeds. The reason JW's have not done what the catholic church has done, has to be at least in part because they never had the power to do so. If the JW organization ever ran a country, it would no doubt run it as it does it's organization, and with that power would come the temptation of corruption. If the Jw organisation, or any organisation, including my own church , had absolute control of the government and were answerable to noone but themselves,I can easily imagine that organization coming up with ways through the government to curtail other denominations size, evagelisation efforts, teachings etc.. And once an organization got a taste for curtailing other churches, it can easily snowball, step by step as it did with the cathloic church. The inquisition started out mildly with the council of nicea, and culminated with the vicious inquisition of the middle ages whereby , in just one example, the whole of southern france was depoulated by the instigation of the catholic church. No one can say that if they were in the posisiton of absolute (almost) power as the catholic church had for many years, that they would never resort to an inquisition or similar deeds. No one knows that till they are in that situtation , and no church, except the catholic church has been in that posistion. I don't believe any church demonimation is perfect, or has a perfect understanding of every scripture in the b ible, if they did, then they would have no need for the holy spirit to lead them in all truth. If the holy spirit leads you into all truth, that presupposes that some of the things one believes are not true, otherwise there would be no need for the holy spirit to lead us into all truth, we would already be t here. And anyone who has false doctrine, and we all do, some more so than others, has an avenue for the devil to work through, (of course there are many other avenuees for the devil to work through as well) IMO. It's sorta like someone, who lived his whole life in a monastry always surrounded my men , saying "I never touched a woman or had illicit sex with her so Im a good christian, you're a bad christain cause 25 years ago you slept with 20 women you were not married too. Doesn't matter that you repented you did it so your not a good christian."

 

[The Gregorian]

How can jesus be equal to God if He is not God?
Therein lies your conundrum.

Sure, both God and Jesus being correlated to "light" ... but does that make them "Equal?" Or, perhaps, being God's son, and being around him for at least a few thousand years, could he not simply be in some ways "similar" to his Father? See.. the reason I wouldn't assume Jesus to be "equal" to his Father is that Jesus flat out said "the Father is greater than I" at John 14:28.

And I've seen all sorts of excuses for this... "Well, he really meant that God is greater than man-Jesus, although God is equal to God-Jesus, because Jesus is mangod, therefore both." (Yes... people have actually used the phrase "Mangod") ... others say "Well, what he really meant is God was greater than him at THAT point because he was on earth, but as soon as Jesus died, he became equal with God again." ... No shame in putting words into Jesus' mouth until you directly deny what he said?

Yes, Jesus is to reign for 1,000 years, and to him every knee shall bow. And all things will be put under Jesus except the Father (showing that although Jesus is given authority, he's still not equal to God, his Father). And, when the last enemy (death) is defeated, Jesus is to hand everything back to the Father, so that the Father may be "All in all."

For [Jesus] must reign

until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet."

Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him,

so that God may be all in all."

YET Jesus calls Himself LORD and Teacher. Both are the names HE gave to God. And He is God.

Thus, the dangers of translating God's name, the tetragrammeton... as "LORD." People are prone to thinking "LORD" and "lord" mean the same thing, when the two words are -entirely- different. "LORD" (all caps) is a replacement for the Father's personal name, which shows up as "Jehovah" in the King James version

Jesus certainly does not call himself "LORD." He's called "lord."

1 corinthians 8:5-6

For though there are those who have the name of gods, in heaven or on earth, as there are a number of gods and a number of lords, 6. There is for us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we are for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we have our being through him.

Notice the distinction between the titles "God" and "lord."

 

[thersites]

One verse, Matthew 28:19. It was Jewish custom to baptize proselytes in the name of YHVH. For Jesus to command His followers to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to concede the existence of three personalities in the one Godhead.

Oddly enough, even the NWT says father, son and holy spirit.

Deal with the documents.

 

[The Gregorian]

Oddly enough, even the NWT says father, son and holy spirit.

Deal with the documents.

Oh muh goo'ness! A verse mentions the Father, Son, and Holy spirit in the same sentence... they must be one yet three, yet neither one nor three!

... Simply by naming three individual beings proves that they are three individual beings. If all three were parts of one "being." it would say to baptize in the name of the triune God.

Instead, it says baptize in the names of both the Father and Son and of the holy spirit.

... deal with the documents. If I say "I see A, B, and C" ... it's obvious I'm seeing three unique things.

 

[steve4.truth]

One verse, Matthew 28:19. It was Jewish custom to baptize proselytes in the name of YHVH. For Jesus to command His followers to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to concede the existence of three personalities in the one Godhead.

Oddly enough, even the NWT says father, son and holy spirit.

Deal with the documents.

good! all 3 in one verse. Does not say they are one person. Does not say each is God. Peter James and John are mentioned in the same sentence. are they a trinity?
Do know why the Jews previously baptized only in the name of YHWH? Because Jesus wasn't born yet! Now, Jesus as the Messiah appears, it is no surprise that they should ALSO be baptized in his name.

I was a trinitarian my whole life till 2001. I felt the same as you do. If you look at this verse from a trinitarian slant, it could be construed as teaching the trinity. If you look at it from a non-trinitarian slant, it can be seen that way too. the question is, what did GOD mean when he had that verse written. The trinity debate is a issue of honesty. That's why I don't argue it. The reason I opened this thread is that it shows that not one verse clearly teaches the trinity. An honest person has to ask themselves if that's really God's view of himself, why didn't He inspire even one verse in His Bible to unmistakably and unambiguously teach this "cardinal teaching". Why such a big book (a library of 66 books and letters), written specifically to "clue us in" and reveal EVERYTHING we need to know (2 Tim. 3:16,17) yet the most important question of WHO IS GOD is left mysteriously ambiguous?????

 

[steve4.truth]

The reason JW's have not done what the catholic church has done, has to be at least in part because they never had the power to do so. If the JW organization ever ran a country, it would no doubt run it as it does it's organization, and with that power would come the temptation of corruption.

good point. that's a reasonably way to look at it. But remember one of our key teachings is that we are politically nuetral. We only support God's heavenly government. The Catholic church did not observe Jesus' command to be "no part of the world". Augustine invented post-millenniumism to teach that the kingdom of God was already on earth ruling THROUGH the catholic church and so the church seized power and brought about the darkest period of human history. JW's would never TRY to run a country--that's the point.

 

[steve4.truth]

Ok, so what about this...

John 8:12 - Jesus says "I am the light of the world." - 1 John 1:5 - God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.

only 2 persons. Only the Father called God. Does not say they are one person. Didn't Jesus say that we are the light of the world? (Mt.5:14) Are we God?

 

[steve4.truth]

Luke 17:18 - Jesus asks why the other nine lepers did not come back to give praise to Him, God, except the Samaritan leper.

only 2 persons, only the Father called God.
Acts 4:21 says the people were glorifying God over the man healed by Peter and John at the gate called beautiful. Does that make Peter and John God?

Deut. 32:43 - rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him - Heb. 1:6 - the "Him" is Jesus the Son.

WORSHIP HIM...only God is worshipped.

only 2 persons, only Father called God
This same greek word is used in the Septuagint (the version Jesus used) at Genesis 23:7 to describe what Abraham did, in harmony with the custom of the time, toward people with whom he was doing business; at 1 Kings 1:23 in the Septuagint to describe the prophet Nathan’s action on approaching King David. There's obviously a different motive in bowing down in each occasion. Just like we only pray to God, but we could pray or entreat a person to do something. It's all about motive.

 

[2ducklow]

good point. that's a reasonably way to look at it. But remember one of our key teachings is that we are politically nuetral. We only support God's heavenly government. The Catholic church did not observe Jesus' command to be "no part of the world". Augustine invented post-millenniumism to teach that the kingdom of God was already on earth ruling THROUGH the catholic church and so the church seized power and brought about the darkest period of human history. JW's would never TRY to run a country--that's the point.

So what you're saying is there is no way the devil could ever tempt the JW leadership to take control of the government, and if the devil even ever did tempt the JW leadership, there is no way they would give in to that temptation. If that be the case then they can't be tempted if there is no possibility of them giving into the temptation. I believe the devil can take anyone of us out any way he wants to, and the only thing that prevents him from doing so is that god gives us a way out from those temptations , but if we don't take the way of escape, the devil will overpower us, anyone of us.

1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.


Joesph took the way of escape from Potifers wife. when she ripped his clothes off Joesph ran away, if he hadn't of he would have been tempted above that he could have taken and given in. any man knows this. And remember, the devil is very subtle. he doesn't come at you head on usually. Usually it's getting you to give in a little here, so he can get you to get in a lttle there, so he can get you to give in a little over t here, until finnaly he's got you completely in the ditch he wants you in. ANd each step the devil gets you to take seems so justifiable. "well, i really have to meet with this woman coworker, cause my wife isn't treating me right I'm not going to do anything just talk to her" Once he gets you there its "well what's a little affection gonna hurt, im not getting it from my wife so a little back rub well help me, but I'd never go to bed with her that's wrong." then once the devil has you there its' " well i'm really getting nothing but arguments from my wife, i need a womans touch Im a man, so a little kiss won't hurt." see where i'm going? That's how the devil works.

 

[steve4.truth]

it would be as unlikely for JW leadership to attempt gaining political control as it would be for southern Baptist to begin baptizing by sprinkling!!!! aint gonna happen!! If you don't believe me, check out their official web site below and you will see that this is a major belief for us.
Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Society Official Web Site

 

[Pythons]

For your viewing.

audio starts at approx 1:15 into the program.

YouTube - What is the Trinity Doctrine? By Walter Martin

 

[The Gregorian]

YouTube - What is the Trinity Doctrine? By Walter Martin

at 5:45... At first I thought that was funny... but it's actually pretty sad... and scary that people actually believe it.

The assirtation is that Jesus referred to himself as God, using the divine name at John 8:58. This video, the preacher quotes 8:58 as "I tell you before abraham was, I am the eternal God."

However:
John 8:58: Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh8.pdf

The phrase he used was "ego eimi" ... An expression of existance in the first person singular form. "Ego eimi" is NOT the tetragrammeton. It is not the divine name. This is nothing more than a statement that Jesus has existed since before Abraham.

In exodus chapter 3, the divine name appears as such: יְהוָה

In verse 14 Moses asked God who he should say sent him, and God uses the phrase אֶהְיֶה who אֶהְיֶה (Often translated as "I am who I am," but more accurately "I shall become who I shall become") אֶהְיֶה is not the divine name. יְהוָה is. Lastly, Jesus was far from the only person to use the phrase "Ego eimi."

For example, At Matthew 3:11, John the baptist says to Jesus "Truly, I give baptism with water to those of you whose hearts are changed; but he who comes after me is greater than I, whose shoes I am not good enough to take up: he will give you baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire:"

Matthew 8:8, a captain says "And the captain in answer said, Lord, I am not good enough for you to come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be made well."

"Ego eimi" is the most basic portion of a sentence "I am" ... for example "I am sitting in a chair" or "I am typing." The fact that people see the words "I" and "am" together, and suggest that Jesus was using the divine name for himself... I'm just speechless.

 

[2ducklow]

it would be as unlikely for JW leadership to attempt gaining political control as it would be for southern Baptist to begin baptizing by sprinkling!!!! aint gonna happen!! If you don't believe me, check out their official web site below and you will see that this is a major belief for us.
Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Society Official Web Site

I beleive you. I agree with you. It's not a weak point with JW's, currently. But things can and sometimes do change. The baptist church isn't likely at all to stop baptising by immersion. But the baptist church of today is much morel liberal in it's thinking than the baptist church of 1900. Give um enough time and they could be saying baptism is optional. Anybody, any organization can be taken down, given enough time and the right circumstances. But. basically I'm just saying the same thing i said in my previous post in a different form. Your answer doesn't address my point. your answer addreses the point of JW church changing overnight to governing a country, my post's point was that given enough time anything can happen..

Or do you believe your church leadership is immune from being tempted by satan?

 

[The Gregorian]

I beleive you. I agree with you. It's not a weak point with JW's, currently. But things can and sometimes do change. The baptist church isn't likely at all to stop baptising by immersion. But the baptist church of today is much morel liberal in it's thinking than the baptist church of 1900. Give um enough time and they could be saying baptism is optional. Anybody, any organization can be taken down, given enough time and the right circumstances. But. basically I'm just saying the same thing i said in my previous post in a different form. Your answer doesn't address my point. your answer addreses the point of JW church changing overnight to governing a country, my post's point was that given enough time anything can happen..

Or do you believe your church leadership is immune from being tempted by satan?

I think it's actually a good point. "Under no circumstances SHOULD it happen" ... however, to say it "can't" is rather blind.

The jews were God's chosen people, and were supernaturally interacted with on a regular basis.... yet, they became cold, obsessed with their own interpretation, and started inserting their own reasoning and over-writing the simple message God gave them. Apart from all the OT examples of people being directly shown miracles, then turning their backs on God (Moses' little hike through the wilderness, anyone?)... consider the Pharisees and Sadducees. They had a direct lineage to chosen people, yet became corrupt. Claiming to know the law better than Jesus.

Jesus reformed the church under peter and the apostles, and any catholic will point out that this directly lead to the catholic church. ... Who quickly gave way to human reasoning, began hiding the bible, inserting pagan teachings (thanks constantine...), and turned around so dramatically, that the church would MURDER people for the blasphamy of wanting to read God's word themselves.

We have plenty of examples, and it's our job NOT to be so ignorant as to suggest that we cannot make the same mistake. We should not. I pray that we do not. But when we assume we CAN not... that's the first step to walking the same path as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Catholics.

That being said... Jehovah will find a way to help us, he always has. If the JWs were to make the same mistake, there would always be people who would still worship him correctly, and he would find a way to bring them together.

But, we should be careful. We need to keep the mindset of the original bible students... who's goal was to keep the mindset of the original apostles.

 

[Pythons]

Would you be willing to discuss this with me again? We could continue on within the post that ended right here within your forum. I would be willing to discuss the Trinity again if you want to.

Pythons.