The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ

S'ok, but Asherah says keep the noise down please.

Well, from what I can tell, I have the JWs on the ropes, missing all their teeth, with their eyes swollen shut and their nose broken in 14 places, bleeding and half dead, but they will not just give up and admit defeat. It reminds of the Monty Python scene where the dude has his arms and legs hacked off, and yells out, "come back here you cowardly bastard and I'll chew your legs off."

Still, they have to keel over and die soon, and then we will all go quietly away... until the next religious thread

Fine. I'm having fun looking at origins (still). And it looks like MCBs antics with warping matters theistic/mythic, pale by comparison with some things. He's just maintaining the tradition.

Maybe... This is an area I am not ignorant of, so, the discussion could be an interesting one.

I could almost preempt, in fact, at least some of the objections to the historicity of the OT. Most of them are easily refuted though - like the story of the Jews picking up monotheism from surrounding cultures, especially the Zoroasterians. At best, the story is extremely unlikely. But anyway, it's all good.

The Jews (I'm using that as a generic term, it's easier to type), are the biggest culprits of inversion and reversal as far as I can tell.
Just remember Bob, I don't subscribe, so I'll have a very different view to you. Ok. I'm looking for connections, and comparisons, NOT just to bolster a faith.


If only you bloody theist didn't burn books so much, it'd be a lot easier.

You are wriggling now.

The plain fact is that the trinity was never a true teaching of Christianity, and only raised it's head many years after the Apostles.

History even tells us that it wasn't fully developed until the 4th century, though I admit I was mistaken about it's source because apparently it wasn't even settled at the Council of Nicea as I originally thought. It was however 4th centrury.

It is true that for centuries before there was dispute about the divine nature of Christ, but more importantly and erroneously about his equality with God. Even at Nicea there was, apparently no real notice taken of Holy Spirit, which incidentally is not a self aware persona at all, but merely God's active force, the tool He uses. It is true that there are one or two passages which give it personality, but the same can be said for Wisdom, so do you wsh to make it a four sided God.

The whole idea of the trinity came from pagan beliefs, and not from Christ and the Apostles, and it is only what they taught that matters. If they didn't teach it, it isn't Christian.

How about all the scriptures that describe the Christ asn having a God? How do you explain them if they are supposed to be the same as the trinity teaches?

I am sorry, but any teaching which claims that three individuals are separate and at the same time the same is so stupid as to be untterly incomprehensible. God is not, He is n fact not all tnat difficult to get to know intimately, as I do.

On top of that, any scripture that claims that an impersonal force which can be shared out over about 500 people at one time, is a person, let alone part of a trinity, is equally incomprehensible.

Even as a child I could see that the trinity was so incomprehensible that the churches had to call it a mystery, and mystery is inconceivable with a God that wants us to become His friends, as He did Abraham.

If you want to criticise the JWs, read their literature first. At least then you will know what you are criticising and not just relying on the words of the Apostates as you do at present. You cannot research anyone or anything by listening only to their enemies.

No, you can never and will never have the JWs on the ropes, because God is with them.

As I say repeatedly you cannot judge them by what you read on the sites of thier enbemies, only by what you read on thier own site.

Read both, as I do.

*bangs head on wall and laughs so as not to commit suicide out of frustration at the madness... the madness*

"You cannot judge them by what you read on their enemies sites, only what you read on their site."

In other words, you can only take the JWs word. Any other word is not to be trusted.

MCB, please, I plead with you here... think, just a little bit.

Should you put your faith in any human or group of humans to the extent that you do?

Does God really want people to do this?

Does he really want you to switch off your mind and be spoon fed?

Why give humans a complex mind then tell them not to use it?

And again I ask you to look at the quote I gave you, the full quote, and explain how it says what the JWs say that it says - how, in other words, does it support the JW doctrine. Explain it to me, please, because I know it contradicts the JWs.

I want to understand how you cannot see that. This should be fascinating.

Now you know how I feel when dealing with you lot.

Don't worry, I'm double checking whenever I can, and personality traits like those you mentioned as regards Mohammed are of no interest to me. When I see someone pushing a personal agenda it's usually pretty obvious to me as I have no axe to grind.

I'm still waaaaay back in time yet.

Funny, that's exactly how I feel about the trinity, lol. How anyone can believe it is well past my comprehension, but then some would say most things are, lol.

Is that really the standard you apply to determine if a teaching is true or false, whether or not it was taught by Christ and the Apostles? How does the Watchtower's blood doctrine fare when we judge it by that standard? Please show us where Christ and the Apostles ever addressed the issue of what components of blood are acceptable and what components of blood are forbidden.

People accept the Trinity doctrine because it is a teaching of their church and they defer to their church leaders to interprete scripture for them. Even if they have doubts about the Trinity doctrine they feel their church leaders have the authority to determine what is true and what is false doctrine. They don't think they are in a position to challenge a church teaching.

It is no different for JW's as you yourself have demonstrated on this forum. Even though there is no scriptural or logical basis for determining that certain components of blood are acceptable while other components of blood are forbidden, you nevertheless allow Watchtower leaders to determine this for you. JW's are even willing to die or let their children die by not taking a transfusion of certain blood components for no reason other than the WTS doesn't approve. They even support the Watchtower's policy of disfellowshipping fellow believers that take a transfusion of certain blood components and will refuse to associate with them.

So I fail to see how JW's are different from other religions when it comes to challenging the false teachings promoted by their leaders. Of course, MadCornishBiker can prove me wrong by simply providing the Biblical basis for the WTS forbidding transfusions of platelets while allowing transfusions of hemoglobin or else reject this teaching because it fails the same standard he claims the Trinty doctrine fails, namely, if Christ and the Apostles didn't teach it, it isn't Christian.

MCB. This is the quote that you cut and pasted, and yet cannot see or find. If you go to your post and have a look for this section, you will find it, because it is there.

While we are at it, I would recommend that you go to this page https://4witness.org/jwquestions/jw_qtrinitylies.php as well.

It looks at many of the arguments the JWs use, and shows why they are wrong. And, unlike the JWs who use quotes without references (which is at best, very poor scholarship as it means that people cannot verify your work), these guys not only give the exact reference, they also give PDF documents showing both the JWs words, and the words of the the authors the JWs mention, which show that the JWs are wrong.

I realise that you are unlikely to accept it, as no amount of evidence will convince you of what is right, true and obvious to all people able to think rationally about the issue, however, it suitably shows any rational thinker that, beyond doubt, the JW organisation is corrupt or moronic.

What you make of it is entirely up to you.

As I have already explained it fares well, since it follows the example to the 1st Century Governing Body.



Anyone should be in a position to challenge anything that doesn't agree with scripture.

The bible makes it very clear how we should treat those who insist on teaching non biblical things, read what Jesus said about false prophets in Matthew 7. Just because people like to have their "ears tickled" doesn't mean thye should.



The difference for JWs is that they teach the truth, and there is no need to argue against it, because everything they teach comes from the bible. The bible, God's word, is the final arbiter in all things.



JWs don't have to challenge the teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society because it is all too easy to show they abased on the bible.

As I said before, a number of times, your pick is less about what they teach as what they don't teach. You seem to think they should only stick to the letter of the law, even though the whole of Jesus teaching was abut applying mercy to the law, which the Governing body did with their ruling saying some blood products are a matter of conscience.

They are not like the Pharisees and so do not apply the letter of the law.

The big difference between the JWs and the other churches is that the JWs don't teach anything that isn't covered by the teaching of Chrsit and the Apostles, and follow the example of the 1st Century Governing Body in all their deliberations, trying to apply mercy to the letter of the law.

They remain separate from the Apostate churches that teach things like the trinity, a very important and God Dishonouring teaching.

Their allowing those who feel their conscience allows them to have some of the minor components of blood, but not the major ones is an example of applying mercy to the law, just as Christ did when defending the disciples agains the Pharisee's accusations of working on a Sunday because they winnowed a little wheat to eat when they were hungry. The Pharisees were right that what the disciples did was against the letter of the law, but Jesus applied mercy and allowwed it.

Every time I read your complaints, I think of Jesus saying to the Pharisees Matthew 9:11-13 " But on seeing this the Pharisees began to say to his disciples: “Why is it that YOUR teacher eats with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing [them], he said: “Persons in health do not need a physician, but the ailing do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners."

I suggest you too should "go and learn" what that means.

As for disfellowshipping, yes that is what they do, and that too is in line with scriptural commendation. I should know, I am disfellowshipped. 2 John 8-13 "9 Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."

Don't forget, with things that are a "matter of conscience" what the Governing Body is saying is "go ahead if your conscience allows, but remember that Christ will judge you on your decision and the motivation behind it. They are not saying it is permitted, just that on that one must judge for oneself.

Some things however push mercy too far.

Fair enough, I just hadn't found it.

As to the questions you point me to, havng read through them there is a lot of obviously faulty reasoning in there, mixed with a lot of wishful thinking. I'll explain what I mean later in this post, but in the meantime see if you can spot it.

Unfortunately few people define the Athanasian Creed the way they do on that site. Most people see the trinity, as defined in the Creed as three persons in one, that si not correct. It is true that Christ said that he and his Father were "one" but the rest of his descriptions of thier relations betray that they were one solely in purpose.

The explanation on that site seems to be interpreting it that way, and with that the JWs would have no argument.

Now to the numbered questions.

1. Yes, that is what they apppear to say.

2. Because Clement did in fact say "equality of substance" abnd that too the Jws would not argue with, however Clement did not say that Christ was of equal rank to his Father, just substance, which is hardly surprising since "God is a spirit" and so are Christ and all the angels - common substance. IS Clement therefore suggesting that the Angles are also equal to God since they share the same substance? If he was, where does that stop? Since God created everything frm His substance it could be argued that everything in creation shares it in one form or another.

3. Simple. He taught that because he was teaching a falsehood, whether or not he realised it.

4. There are a number of problems here. The Jws do not say that no-one knew of the trinity teaching, simply that it was not a part of Christian Doctrine before the 4th century. There is not doubt that some Greek educated scholars had tried to apply it to God and Christ, but Generally the argument was, until the Athanasian Creed became part of the Christian Doctrine in the 4th century was just of the equality of Christ and God, with the Holy Spirit hardly getting a look in. The sites claim that the trinity was known throughout

5. I did find this paragraph interesting because of the part they chose to highlight with undermines the basis of the trinity, the equality of God and Christ because the last line or so says "the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father" Yes exactly, as Christ later said he could do nothing of his own origination but did only what his Father told him. Deffinitely not the description of an equal.

6. How does Jehovah turning to His son and saying "let us make man in our image" say anything about the trinity. It certanly doesn't say what Tertullian is making it say, merely that the son was there and working under his Father's direction.

Tertulllian's whole language calling God the first and Christ the second speaks of a hierarchy with God on top and Christ immediately below not of equality.


7. God and Christ, and all the angles are of one, substance as they are all spirit beings, as scripture tells us. However nowhere is the Holy Spirit described as a spirit being.

8. That is not an accurate translation of Exodus 3:14 as the followng point out:-

I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Heb., ? ? ? ('Eh?yeh' 'Asher' 'Eh?yeh', God’s own self-designation;

Leeser, “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE”;

Rotherham, “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” Gr., E?go' ei?mi ho on, “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”; Lat., e'go sum qui sum, “I am Who I am.” 'Eh?yeh' comes from the Heb. verb ha?yah', “become; prove to be.” Here 'Eh?yeh' is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Ge 2:4 ftn, “Jehovah,” where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha?wah' appears in the divine name.

9. The Watchtower certainly points to that as a possibility, as do many other versions of John 1:1, none of which talk of the equality of God and Christ, and therefore none of which the JWs argue with:

Analytical Literal Translation (the parts in brackets are the most telling as they give alternate readings) "In the beginning was the Word [or, the Expression of [divine] Logic], and the Word was with [or, in communion with] God, and the Word was God [or, was as to His essence God]."

Emphatic Diaglott (interlinear section) "Diaglott(i) 1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

6A Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”
Gr., ??? ???? ?? ? ????? (kai the?os? en ho lo?gos)
1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An
Improved Version, Upon the
Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s
New Translation: With a
Corrected Text, London.
1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,
interlinear reading), by
Benjamin Wilson, New York and
London.
1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.
1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.
1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

10. No it isn't. The Journal says exactly what is reproduced there, That is also why so many other translations have recorded John 1:1 differently to the common version, as shown above.

As I say at the start, there is a lot of faulty reasoning in these arguments reasoning is biased towards one outcome and doesn't allow for the fact that the outcome may be diferent, as in fact in most cases it is. Most of the statements that they rely on are ambiguous or based on assumption.

They even seem to imply that the JWs believe something other than they do.

The JW's objections to the trinity teaching are simply that:

a: It makes the Christ equal to God even though he and the Apostles taught that he wasn't. This in effect drags God down ot Christ's level. Not much fo a downgrade admittedly, but one none the less.

b: It denies, that Christ was created, which the Apostles taught He was.

c: It makes the Holy Spirit out to be a sapient entity with a mind of it's own, which it is not, it is simply God's active force.


Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?

Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa?ra?kle?tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38)

These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered.

What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood.

The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.

Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.