The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Sorry, posted early by accident.

The biblical precedent is for studying the subject and making a decision which shows love both for God and the Brotherhood. Are you so blinkered that you cannot see that?




As I said before, you really do need to get that chip off yur shoulder and look at things properly, you are blinded by the hate for the brotherhood which comes through clearly and is something you share with God's chief enemy.

You have no basis for complaint other than petty nitpcking pver details, and no consideration for the bigger picture.

As I have said before. I would not take any blood component, but that is my choice and my conscience, and so personally I don't believe the Governing Body are right myself, but I do at least understand where they are comng from. I understand their attempt to balance love for God with Love for the Brotherhood, care for their spiritual needs with care for their physical health.

I also appreciate that they have let the Brotherhood something to decide for themselves, and there are many reasons for that. As I said, look at the bigger picture don't get myopic over details.

As Jesus said to the Pharisees as recorded at Luke 11:37-44 "When he had spoken this, a Pharisee requested him to dine with him. So he went in and reclined at the table. 38 However, the Pharisee was surprised at seeing that he did not first wash before the dinner. 39 But the Lord said to him: “Now YOU Pharisees, YOU cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but the inside of YOU is full of plunder and wickedness. 40 Unreasonable persons! He that made the outside made also the inside, did he not? 41 Nevertheless, give as gifts of mercy the things that are inside, and, look! all [other] things are clean about YOU. 42 But woe to YOU Pharisees, because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the rue and of every [other] vegetable, but YOU pass by the justice and the love of God! These things YOU were under obligation to do, but those other things not to omit. 43 Woe to YOU Pharisees, because YOU love the front seats in the synagogues and the greetings in the marketplaces! 44 Woe to YOU, because YOU are as those memorial tombs which are not in evidence, so that men walk upon them and do not know [it]!”

Speaking of the brotherhood, let's recapitulate our discussion so far.

The Jehovah's Witnesses (aka, 'the brotherhood' ), said that the early church fathers did not teach or believe in the deity of Christ. They were wrong.

They said Origen did not teach the deity of Christ. They were wrong.

They said Justin Martyr did not preach the deity of Christ. They were wrong.

They said Tertullian did not preach the deity of Christ. They were wrong.

They said Clement did not teach the deity of Christ. They were wrong.

The 'brotherhood' also quoted biblical scholars.

They said Mantey did not teach the deity of Christ. They were wrong.

There is some kind of pattern here that I can't quite put my finger on...

No, that is not what they say. They say that Jesus and the Apostles didn't teach any trinity and that the bible doesn't support it. There was a lot of dissension amongst the early fathers and even those that did believe in it couldn't support it as the evidence you have provided so far shows.

The fact that they say nothing in the Early Church Fathers writing supports the trinity does not mean that the Early Church Fathers didn't believe in it.

To be honest it doesn't really matter what the early church fathers believed or not since the Apostasy was well underway in the 2nd century, when they were writing. If you read the letters of the Apostles you will realise that they were fighting against that Apostasy while they were alive.



Again, so far as you have been able to show me they said that nothing in his writings supported the trinity, not that he didn't teach it. Not the same thing at all.



Same answer as above.



Same answer as above but there is no issue with Christ being divine, only with him being equal, and co-eternal to his Father. As I have explained already, if you bothered to read what I posted.



Yes there is a pattern. The JWs are being misrepresented on Apostate sites, as so often is true.

Plus your posts fit the usual pattern of people not reading what I actually say, you certainly haven't.

I sometimes wonder why otherwise intelligent people such as yourself cannot grasp what I am actually saying but insist on turning it into what you want to believe I said. That is nto the behaviour of a truly rational person.

Let me summarise for you.

Your favourite Apostate sites say the JWs deny the divinity of Christ They don't

The things that the JWs deny about the trinity teaching and any similar teachings are:-

Those who teach the trinity teach that God and Christ are equal - the bible says not.

Those who teach the trinity say that God and Christ are co-eternal - the bible says not, since the bible explains that Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation" in other words was born - had a beginning - before anything else in creation did. God had no beginning.

Incidentally that exact translation of Colossians 1:15 not only comes from the NWT, but also from Riverside, YLT, ACV, ASV, ALT, and
ABP_Strongs according to studybible.com. That means at least 6 other translators read it the same way.

Those who teach the trinity say that the Holy Spirit is a personal being - the bible says not.

I have given much biblical evidence about all those point but you have chosen to ignore what the bible says in favour of what these Apostate sites tell you. All that proves is that you are desperate to have the JWs proven wrong whether or not they are.

The bible agrees that the one who became Jesus was either divine, of divine sort, of godlike sort, a godlike one, or whatever more accurate translations of John 1:1 describe Jesus as. They also feel that if John had meant that God and Christ were equal the would have used the same Greek word for both rather than using two different words Theon and Theos. The only reasonable explanation for the use of the two different words is to differentiate between the two beings.

Anything the bible agrees with, the JWs agree with.

No, that is not what I said, read it again. You are very good at usiing the polititian's and journalist's trick of only picking on or two phrases out of context and then putting your own slant on it.

That to me is the height of dishonesty.

Is there any point in my replying to you any more? You twist everything I say, you misrepresent what the society has said, and can't even read what the Apostate sites say correctly. I have answered all your points a number of times now but you insist on twisting the answers. Does truth and honesty mean nothing to you?

If you can't even read what I say and comment on it honestly and accurately why should I bother with you?

On God and Christ being equal - yes and no is the best answer. As Paul says, Christ *was* equal to God, but he "emptied himself," to become a man. So, yes, he is God, but, in becoming man he became less than the father. To me, it seems pretty straight forward.



True. But, Jesus calls himself what God calls himself - "the first and the last." There cannot be two different beings that are the "first and last" can there? Is Jesus really the first and last? Or, did he lie?

And, John chapter 1 explicitly says that through Christ every created thing came into existence. Did Christ create himself, or, is John wrong? They are the only two alternatives. And if you throw in the fact that Paul also said the same in Colossians - that everything was created through Christ, it becomes apparent that Christ was not created.



And as we have discussed, this is another example of the effect a lack of scholarship has on biblical interpretation. First begotten - (prototokos) - did not mean first created, the word meant having authority or sovereignty over all created things. If Paul had sought to suggest that Christ was a created being, or, had a beginning, he would have said protoktistos. And, as this would contradict Christ's own claim to be the first and last, it is clear that Paul used the correct term.

And it says in John 5:17 https://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_005.htm But he answered them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” 18 On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

You may perhaps note here that John says that Jesus was "calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. It really does not get much more blatant than that. What he does not say, is that the Jews wrongly thought that he made himself equal to God. Does this mean that John got this all horribly wrong too?

The error in the JWs doctrine could be fixed by them learning what the term "Son of God" meant, as used by Christ.



MCB, I have never disputed with you that there are others that believe what the JWs believe regarding the deity of Christ. It is true that the view held by the JWs has been held by a minority of people historically, and has been refuted as heresy - namely Arianism. In fact, if you knew anything of church history, you would know that the First Council of Nicaea was called specifically to deal with this heresy.

The fact that the heresy of Arianism existed, shows that the heresy of Arianism existed. I therefore do not even try to say that it didn't. I merely point out that it was a minority view not held by the early church fathers, and was written off as heresy.

Therefore, I only dispute the legitimacy of the JW view. It is indisputably a minority view, and was not a view held by the early church fathers.



And the bible never says that the holy spirit is an impersonal active force either. But it does say that the holy spirit speaks, grieves, intercedes etc. These are qualities of personhood, they are not qualities generally attributed to electricity. Or, perhaps you could explain to me how it is that an active force like electricity can experience grief?



Desperation has nothing to do with it. I disagree with you for perfectly valid reasons.

And I can say the same about your belief too.

Over and over I showed conclusively that the JWs are wrong, not just in their biblical interpretation, but in the systematic way they misquote others to support their view.



And, yet again, the lack of scholarship of the JWs presents a problem. As both theon and theos refer to God, and are in fact, the same word in different form, there is no reason for interpreting this as you suggest.

Theos is the accusative noun form of "God".
Theon is the nominative noun form of "God".

And again, placed in the context of the rest of the verse claiming that everything that was created, was created through Christ, it becomes apparent that Christ cannot have been created, or, the verse is wrong.



Which is precisely my objection to the JWs. They have been shown to have done that by me here, in relation to their quote on the history of the trinity, their statements regarding the early church fathers, and in their use of Dr. Julius Mantey.

I wonder why it is wrong for others to do it, but ok when the JWs do it.

For example, the JWs explicitly state, "Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter." (The last paragraph in the section entitled, "What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught," in "Should you believe in the Trinity?" ) https://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm

Now, throughout that section, the JWs quote early church fathers, to make it appear as though they don't support the trinity. However, as the quotes I have provided show, every single one of them actually did support the trinity, and explicitly wrote on their support of it.

The JWs are wrong. Embarrassingly wrong, in fact. That you refuse to see what sticks out like dog balls to any other person, is not my problem, to be honest.

Anyway, I agree with you that our conversation is pointless. I have believed that for quite some time now.

You begin from the position that no matter what is presented to you, no matter how convincing the evidence showing that the JWs have things wrong, that only the JWs are right. You are perfectly entitled to believe that of course, but it does make discussion pointless.

So why then, do the JWs say, https://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm
"Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter."

They say the trinity was *unknown* for centuries after biblical times. As I have provided quotes from the early church fathers where they explicitly support the trinity, we can conclusively say that in this the JWs are wrong. Correct?

Did they mean that the trinity was unknown as an official teaching, or unknown as a philosophical idea? They could hardly be saying that it was unknown as a philosophical idea, since there have been trinities since the Egyptians, if not before. However it was unknown as a Christian teaching because it was not officially introduced into Christianity until the 4th century.

The fact that some were arguing for it from the middle of the second century onwards possibly before judging by the letters in the bible, does not mean that is was known as a biblical teaching.

The very fact that Origen, Justin and others were still arguing about it actually demonstrates that as a fact.

To me, that is what the JWs mean, but them I've long got past trying to pull them to pieces because I now know them for what they are, God's people on earth.

The point remains that it is not a biblical teaching and no amount of twisting the scriptures, or even changing them make that true because it would be necessary to alter far too many scriptures to make that possible and prevent the contradictions that reveal the trinity to be false.

I have always said that I am not convinced that the JWs have all the truth, simply that they are far nearer to it than any other group.

Of course I have an advantage over you that I have spent enough time with them to know how they think and what their motivations are. You haven't, all you have really done is listen to their detractors, who generally have an axe to grind.

Is this purely semantics on your part? The Trinity was an accepted part of Christian theology from the time of the early church fathers, as Origen, Justin Martyr etc., show in their writing.

The fact that they put forth an apologetic to argue in favour of this doctrine shows that, if nothing else.



And it also does not mean that it was not known either.



They were not solely arguing about it, in as much as they were arguing for it. This shows that not everyone accepted the belief, however this says nothing about whether the belief is right or wrong.



That is fair enough, you are in fact, perfectly entitled to hold that view. I obviously disagree, and for reasons that I consider perfectly valid.



No, it is not a fact that the bible does not offer support for the trinity doctrine. It does. I am prepared to accept that it is a matter of interpretation, as after all, this is true. What you and I believe about the issue is solely based on interpretation, be it ourts or others.



Not really. It is true that I have looked at what the JWs say, and, have looked at what their detractors say. However, it is also true that I have looked at what people said prior to the JWs even existing, as well as those that speak now, without even mentioning the JWs.

I personally have no axe to grind. I am not a member of any church organisation. The closest to that that I get, is getting together with other Christians, some of whom attend various churches, and some of whom, like me, do not.

Upon first encountering the JWs, I was happy enough to listen to their argument. I did not simply write it off as false, but listened to their view as presented by their representative that knocked on my door (and subsequently, other members of the church that have accompanied him).

In fitting with all reasonable expectations of someone using the logical mind with which we exist, I ask questions. Most answers I find unsatisfactory. Does this mean that I am right and they are wrong? No. But in good conscience, I will not believe to be right a thing I believe to be wrong.