Thursday, July 18, 2019

Why are there 1,666 pages in the Jehovah Witness so called Bible?


Was that a mistake? Look up C.T. Russell (their founder) Start there and you will know why!!!

Note:
I am including this as it demonstrates the depths of intellectual depravity some Trinitarians are willing to plumb.



My answer

Bill Cetnar apparently advanced this looser/false accusation. Even if it was true... All Bibles have page # 666 in them. So what?

Also, CT Russell was the founder of the Watchtower, not us. Thanks for presenting this question though! It shows the desperate mindset some opposers of God/friends of Satan have.

Edit 1:
Also, some people advance the soundly-refuted satanic accusations that CTR was a mason and occultist. It's sadly quite hilarious.

Tim F the Gardener said:
Obviously it was a terrible mistake in their 1981 black hard bound version, counting 1,666 pages from cover to cover.

=======
I respond: I have that 1981 black hard bound version, and it's OVER 1,666 pages.
=======

The publisher acknowledged and changed the number of pages afterwards, so they knew the number of pages contain the mark of the Beast from Revelation!

=======
I respond: This is based on the assumption that it's even relevant, which it clearly is not especially since it was never 1,666 pages to begin with. Even if it was, it would be completely irrelevant and a shallow red herring.

Edit 2:
Here's the complete accusation and my refutation:
Former-JW Bill Cetnar is reported to have said: "Their standard hardbound black bible (NWT) which I think was published in 1981, it has 1,666 pages. Count for yourselves from cover to cover, I was more than a little surprised."

First of all, the last page number is 1659. The back of that page is 1660, to be followed by three more pages including the last page before the cover. OK... continuing his line of reasoning would have to include the cover page with the continued map that would be page 1667. And, if we go to the beginning of the hardbound black NWT and continue his reasoning from there, we see that the first page number is 5, the Forward. Before that are two more pages, then the first map page before the cover page that he included before the back cover page. So, we have over 1666 pages.

Edit 3: Proof that I have one is in my refutation where I counted the pages. :-)
Edit 4: The ones who use this argument need to simultaneously prove that the black 1981 NWT had that number of pages and that 1,666 pages is somehow damning. It makes no sense at all to sensible people.
Edit 5: The people who think this is a good argument need to realize that they are in danger of unwittingly condemning the Bible since it has 66 books in it and also page # 666.
Edit 6: Hey I've got 6 thumbs down, this was last edited 6 hours ago, and this is my 6th edit! Woooo spooky if you're loonie!


Note: The Trinitarians who accept this terrible reasoning from an apostate have claimed it as their own, and are thus equally responsible for it. (See What is an apostate? for the definition: jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-is-apostate-as-defined-by-jehovahs.html)

See also: Are opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses too lazy to double check the accusations that ex-JW make?

My answer
Some just jump on the most asinine accusations imaginable and accept them. For instance, user Jim once asked about the 1981 black NWT having 1,666 pages like the number 666 in Revelation! Priceless! Nonsense on top of nonsense!



Lastly, and quite ironically, the Trinitarians who make this outlandishly absurd accusation also may promote their Scutum Fidei, which is an equilateral triangle:


60, 60, 60 which is a much closer match to 666 than 1,666 will ever be. This Trinitarian claim is thus the most intellectually bankrupt claim ever concocted!


Amazingly, it gets even worse.

Additionally, this lame claim from this Trinitarian circle that burns your brain with its irony is on the same plane as this argument made by flat earthers (people who reject the globe earth for a flat disk earth) that the globe-earth axis tilt of 23.4° is also 66.6°, thus the globe earth is satanic according to them. See the following graphic:


Their 66.6° flat earth argument is on the same level as the 1,666 claim proffered by those Trinitarians. This level of stupidity is itself satanic, as seen in James 3:15:

This is not the wisdom that comes down from above; it is earthly, animalistic, demonic.

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Did you know Charles Spurgeon believed that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?



Charles Spurgeon (1834 – 1892) remains highly influential among Christians of various denominations, among whom he is known as the "Prince of Preachers". He was a strong figure in the Reformed Baptist tradition, defending the Church in agreement with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith understanding, and opposing the liberal and pragmatic theological tendencies in the Church of his day.

In 1866, Spurgeon stated: “You remember how our Lord, who is the true Michael, the only great Archangel, said at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, ‘I beheld Satan as lightning falling from Heaven.’” (Our Lord’s Transcendent Greatness, Dec. 2, 1866) Then, in 1868 he mentioned: “We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. . .Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” (The Angelic Life, Nov. 22, 1868) Finally, Spurgeon stated, “We rejoice in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Michael of the angels, the Redeemer of men. For by Him we see Satan cast out and all the powers of evil hurled from their places of power and eminence.” (The Blood of the Lamb, The Conquering Weapon, Sept. 9, 1888)

Links:


LINK

Additional reading:

Friday, December 23, 2016

Why do JW's say Jehovah God?

Why you say Jehovah God? Me no get!

[Note, the questioner (who had a caveman avatar) deleted his question soon after I answered, and I was the only one who answered. His description of his question is restructured from his similar question he asked me on this Q&A under Gloria's answer.]

Is Jehovah God a different god from God? Or are you using Jehovah as some kind of first name; like Jesus God, Holy spirit God, or Father God?

My answer

Jehovah (Psalm 83:18) is the Almighty God who is the Father. Jesus declared that the Father person is the “only true God” in John 17:1-5 in accords with divine revelation seen in Deuteronomy 32:6, Isaiah 63:16, 64:8, Jeremiah 31:9, Psalm 89:26 and Malachi 2:10, which all in one way or another identify God or Jehovah as the Father.

See:
Biblical monotheism is...
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/biblical-monotheism-is-monolatrism.html

[To this, the questioner replied here under Gloria's answer:]
Why not just say Father, or God? Why Jehovah God?

ME:
Because that's his name, used some 7,000 times in the OT. For instance, see: Psalm 83:18.

Why are Christians so utterly confused about the Trinity?


They say "I'm correct, I know the facts", but when you see 10 other Christian answers about the same Trinity question ....... THEY ARE often **DIFFERENT** answers. They all think "I'm correct, I know the facts".

Clearly these Christians are making it up as they go along, in order to appear as the "winner".

My answer

Well for one, because it's full of contradictory teachings, like Jesus being fully divine and fully human simultaneously outside of earth's atmosphere, and that God is not a person but an impersonal construct housing three people.

See my extensive explanations here:

Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth

Jesus’ Resurrection Body

Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis

What a tangled web we weave...

Biblical monotheism is...

Friday, October 21, 2016

Protestants: Do you know what the "Protestant's Burden" is?

See pages 163-4 of Truth in Translation:
books.google.com link

Update: Hi [name removed]! Thanks for posting. However, I'm afraid his book is far more credible and serious than you are allowing for.
Update 2: Same goes for "[name removed]." He's very objective and for the most part very reliable. (He's not perfect however, but he doesn't need to be and none of us are.)


Best Answer: 

Yes, BeDuhn's book has far more value than many wish it to have. It was favorable to the NWT, and critical of the most popular English translations. Therefore it is understandable that Protestants or Catholics would be critical of BeDuhn's book.

BeDuhn's analysis is often misrepresented - his book was about *bias* in translation and how it affects accuracy - not translation accuracy in general. He said he picked the verses he analysed because those were the most talked about and controversial - they were the ones that others brought to his attention. They tended to be verses that were theologically important, so much so that bias would color the translation. Basically, the NWT was accused of bias in a certain verse, BeDuhn would investigate, and found that the NWT was actually the most accurate compared to other Bibles. BeDuhn did not say that the NWT was the most accurate Bible translation, bar none, but that it was the most accurate in the verses analysed.

BeDuhn found what he calls the Protestant Burden - the burden that Protestants have to make their teachings conform to the Bible - their supposed ultimate authority. Catholics don't have this because their church has equal or more authority. So, for example, Protestants need Trinitarian proof texts, but the Catholics are fine with church creeds that proclaim the Trinity. I have found that many Catholics are Ok with the Trinity not being formulated until 325 CE, for they think the Church had God's backing to proclaim the Athanasian Creed. But Protestants want Paul and John to be writing about the Trinity in the first century.

Basically, Protestants will color their translation in such a way that supports the Trinity - a doctrine they're not willing to abandon. On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses are interested in what the Bible itself says, stripped of tradition.

I agree with BeDuhn. JWs would believe in the Trinity if it was biblical, but I don't think Protestants are willing to disbelieve the Trinity if not biblical.

LINK


Related blog entries:

Monday, July 18, 2016

Why does the King James Version retain Jehovah four times?


The King James Version uses the name "Jehovah" four times (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) out of the nearly 7,000 times it appears in the OT, (6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia).

Why were they left in these four (4) places? Is there any significance in this, or is it random?

Please note that while a few place-names which include "Jehovah" are also left intact (see Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24), I'm not referring to these, but to these four places where Jehovah is a name:

Exodus 6:3
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psalm 83:18
That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2
Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4
Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH [is] everlasting strength:

Best Answer:

1) Why does the King James Version retain Jehovah four times?

Consistency in translation (when appropriate) is an important issue in modern translation - but was deemed much less important in 1611. Different individuals translated different portions of the KJV without extensive guidelines regarding translation consistency. (Ideally, consistency in translation means that a particular word in the source language is always rendered in the same way in the target language. In practice the best translations implement consistency when it benefits the accuracy and precision of the translation, but not at other times.)

A good example of inconsistency in the KJV is in the transliteration of names. Several names that are identical in Hebrew are rendered differently by the various translators.

However, probably an even more important reason is that "Jehovah" was used in the Bishops' Bible. The translators of the KJV were under strict orders to use the same wording as the Bishops' Bible whenever accuracy would allow.

So: I think the real answer is:
a) The KJV translators had to follow the Bishops' Bible, which used "Jehovah" in Exo 6:3
b) Because there was only a minimal attempt (by today's standards) to ensure consistency of translation in the KJV


Note that the translators were instructed to follow the wording of older Bible versions when the Bishops' Bible was inaccurate; it may be that in those 3 other verses the word "Jehovah" appears in older Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible.
http://studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=I... 

(Bible Research Tools)

Another contributor (the late Solomon Landers) said:

It is probably random. There is no indication in the Hebrew text that "Jehovah" should only be represented in these four places, and not elsewhere.

If the KJV translators had followed their Hebrew text, they would have used "Jehovah" consistently throughout their Bible, as the later KJV revision, the American Standard Version (1901) does.

The use of "Lord" in Bibles as a substitute title for God's name (YHWH, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" in English) is based on a tradition that is not found in the Bible itself, where people from all walks of life freely speak God's name openly.

If the KJV were accurately translated, the fact of the frequent and customary reference to God by name would be evident.

LINK

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Did you know that Baptist Theologian John Gill connected Michael with Jesus?


John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a staunch Calvinistic soteriology.[1]

His magnum opus, John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, has this comment on 1 Thessalonians 4:16:

with the voice of the archangel;
so Michael is called, in (Jude 1:9) with which compare (Revelation 12:7) and who perhaps is no other than Christ himself, who is the head of all principality and power; and the sense be, that Christ shall descend from heaven with a voice, or shall then utter such a voice, as will show him to be the archangel.[2]

Additionally, he made the same connection for Revelation 12:7, while maintaining his Trinitarianism:

[I]t seems best to interpret it of Jesus Christ, who is equal with God, is his fellow, is one with the Father, and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily: he is the Archangel, the first of the chief princes, the head of all principality and power, who is on the side of the Lord's people, pleads their cause, defends their persons, and saves them; see (Jude 1:9) (Daniel 10:13) (12:1).[3]

While he did not deny the Trinity, did you know that he still made the connection of Michael the archangel with Jesus Christ?

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gill_(theologian)
[2] http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=1th&chapter=004&verse=016
[3] http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=012&verse=007

See related question:
Why does Christ come to raise the dead with the archangel's voice?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuUVPk0R3ZUfMMKa8vYqL84jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20100727085806AANv8uV [See Appendix B]

See also: http://jehovah.to/xlation/ar.html under "What Some Commentators Have Said".

Best Answer:

Does it really matter to them? It doesn't seem to be that way!

Several others had come to that conclusion as well, like John Wesley, founder of the Methodists. I'm sure they have no clue that John Wesley believed that Jesus IS Michael.

LINK

Appendix

  1. Confessions of Clerics
  2. From Y!A
  3. The Works of Jonathan Edwards
  4. Related blog entries

Confessions of Clerics

John Calvin:

"Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." 'Michael the Archangel and Jesus Christ have the same role.'

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.vii.iii.html


John Wesley:

"Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ."
"Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it."
"Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation."

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/notes-on-the-book-of-daniel

Geneva Bible Commentary:

"God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel."

http://www.ccel.org/g/geneva/notes/Daniel/12.html


John Gill:

"with the voice of the archangel; so Michael is called, in Jude 1:9 with which compare Revelation 12:7 and who perhaps is no other than Christ himself, who is the head of all principality and power; and the sense be, that Christ shall descend from heaven with a voice, or shall then utter such a voice, as will show him to be the archangel; or as the Syriac version renders it, "the head", or "prince of angels";"

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/1-thessalonians-4.html#16

While maintaining his Trinitarianism, he added:

"it seems best to interpret it [Michael] of Jesus Christ, ... he is the Archangel, the first of the chief princes, the head of all principality and power, who is on the side of the Lord's people, pleads their cause, defends their persons, and saves them."

(Note, the "..." cuts out his wordy Trinitarian explanation, removed for clarity.)

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/revelation-12.html#7


From Y!A

Question:
Why does Christ come to raise the dead with the archangel's voice?

Would not more command and authority be with his own voice?

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:16, NET Bible

Why did some Christian theologians, like John Calvin, (Calvin’s Commentaries on The Prophet Daniel, Vol. II, Baker reprint, vol. XIII, pp. 369, 370), John Gill (A Complete Body of Practical and Doctrinal Divinity, The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987 reprint, p. 617), and Johathan Edwards (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Banner of Truth, 1979 reprint, p. 606.), postulate that the archangel was Christ himself?

Best Answer:
It is evident that these Christian theologians postulated that the archangel was Christ himself because of the scriptural evidence. They concluded that because the prefix "arch," means "chief" or "principal," and the word "Archangel" is never found in the plural, that this implies that there is only ONE Archangel (Compare Jude 9, "Michael THE Archangel"). So when the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is also described as being that of the "Archangel" at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, this suggests to them that he is, in fact, himself the Archangel.

Today, Jehovah Witnesses are widely associated with this belief. BUT THEY WEREN'T THE FIRST TO REASON that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Note what early Christian scholar Origen wrote:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably ANGELS]; AND OF THESE CHRIST WAS THE HIGHEST and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.

"The EARLIER PROTESTANT SCHOLARS usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl." - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, John A. Lees (1930, Vol. III), p. 2048.

"ARCHANGEL. This word is only twice used in the Bible, 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9. In the last passage it is applied to Michael, who, in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish Nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of an angelic army. So EXALTED are the POSITION and offices ASCRIBED TO MICHAEL, THAT MANY THINK THE MESSIAH IS MEANT." - Inter-National Bible Dictionary, published by Logos International, Plainfield, New Jersey, p. 35.

Even MODERN TRINITARIANS sometimes admit that Jesus in his pre-human existence appeared as an angel.

Highly respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:

"The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son." - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.

And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was

"a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56]." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.

"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982.

"Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.

"ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.

"The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuUVPk0R3ZUfMMKa8vYqL84jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20100727085806AANv8uV


The Works of Jonathan Edwards

Satan has ever had a peculiar enmity against the Son of God. Probably his first rebellion, which was his condemnation, was his proudly taking it in disdain, when God declared the decree in heaven, that his Son in man’s nature, should be the King of heaven, and that all the angels should worship him. However that was, yet it is certain that his strife has ever been especially against the Son of God. The enmity has always been between the seed of the woman, and the serpent. And therefore that war which the devil maintains against God is represented by the devil and his angels fighting against Michael and his angels (Rev. 12:7). This Michael is Christ (Dan. 10:21 and 12:1).
(Christ Exalted Section III)

When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and set himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of angels, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace the elect angels from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels, for thought he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable, state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. The elect angels joined with him, the glorious Michael, as their captain, while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined him, and then was that literally true that fulfilled afterwards figuratively. Rev xii. “When there was war in heaven : Michael and his angels fought against the dragon ; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not ; neither was there place found any more heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world ; he was case out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
(The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Banner of Truth, 1979 reprint, p. 606.)

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/82062-Is-Michael-Jesus-Edwards-Calvin-Revelation?s=d821c3d2464d4591f27f55c6c572ffc1

§ 45. Overcoming Satan ... But it is the special work of Christ to bruise the serpent’s head; to destroy the works of the devil; and that by his own strength. For he is represented as conquering him, because he is stronger than the strong man armed, and so overcoming him and taking from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and spoiling his goods. It is he that has spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them. He is the spiritual Samson, that has rent the roaring lion as he would have rent a kid; and the spiritual David, that has delivered the lamb out of his mouth, and has slain that great Goliath. He is that Michael who fights with the dragon and casts him out; and at last will judge Satan, and will utterly destroy him; and will inflict those everlasting torments on him spoken of in Rev. 20:10. In the apprehension of which he now trembles, and trembled for fear that Christ would inflict those torments on him, when he cried out and fell down before him, saying, “Art thou come to torment me before the time?” and, “I beseech thee, torment me not.”
(The works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2. Originally published in 1834. (507). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 2008)


VI. ... The glorious majesty of God appears in conquering all those mighty enemies of the church one age after another; in conquering Satan, that proud and strong spirit, and all his hellish host; in bringing him down under foot, long after he had vaunted himself as god of this world, and when he did his utmost to support himself in his kingdom. Christ, our Michael, has overcome him, the devil was cast out, and there was found no more place for him in heaven; but he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(The works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 1. Originally published in 1834. (618). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 2008)

Related blog entries:

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses say they believe in the divinity of Christ...?


How can Jesus be divine and not be God?

My Answer:

Everyone who lives in the spirit realm lives in the divine realm as they are the same place. All spirit beings are divine. The Almighty Creator is to be worshiped as such.

See:
Biblical monotheism is...
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/biblical-monotheism-is-monolatrism.html

I'll add that since Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is truly 100% man and truly 100% divine, that it unwittingly denies the full divinity of Christ.

LINK

Monday, September 14, 2015

Why did the mob sent to arrest Jesus retreat and fall down when he said "I am he"?


John 18:6 tells us that when Jesus said “I am the man” (J.B. Phillips) that the mob of soldiers and officials “retreated and fell to the ground.” (J.B. Phillips; NET Bible) The expression “I am the man” is literally “I am” from Ἐγώ εἰμι. Jesus said that because he asked them ‘Who are you looking for?’ and they replied ‘Jesus the Nazarene,’ and thus Jesus replied, ‘I am him, I’m the one you’re looking for.’

A NET Bible footnote tells us that “L. Morris says that “it is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus’ unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall” (John [NICNT], 743-44).” But the rest of the footnote claims that Ἐγώ εἰμι is a Divine Name and then connects it to their preferred English translation of Exodus 3:14, of “I AM.”

But we can test that interpretation by replacing “I am” with another divine designation:
Test:
Jesus: “Who are you looking for?”
Police: “Jesus.”
Jesus: “YHWH!”
End of test.
Result: Nonsense.

So why did they fall to the ground since Jesus was not using a divine name but simply affirming that he was the man they were seeking?


Best Answer:

The mob, or at least some of them, fell back because Jesus’ confident and forthright response caught them off guard. It may have seemed as if he were prepared to fight with a mob of disciples himself. His courageous response despite the formidable mob before him surprised them, causing them to brace themselves for what could have been an ambush of Jesus’ own device against them. Besides, there were possibly two swords possessed by his present disciples that may have been visible to the mob, even one of the disciples did cut off an ear of one of the members of the mob! Quickly they realized that no such attack was intended. Jesus taught peace and love, not violence and hate. :)

Another answer:

I have to agree with the footnote concerning the unexpected response of Jesus.

This is not a well lighted park as we have to day. Torch light is not very powerful.

On the other hand the second half of the commentary about the "I Am" is wrong.

Though the greek does say: "I am" the correct translation is "I am he"

NASB: 5 They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He *said to them, “I am He.”
NIV: 5 *said to them, “I am He.”
KJV: 5 Jesus saith unto them, I am he.
YLT: 5 Jesus saith to them, `I am [he];'
NCV: 5 “Jesus from Nazareth.”“I am he,”

Add to this "I am" at Exodus 3:14 is translated from the Latin Vulgate and not the original Hebrew.

scripture4all.org translates it as: "I shall prove to be whom I am becoming"

Jehovah in Ex. 3:14 is not telling Moses that He exists, but that he will prove whom he is.

.J Washington Watts, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968. A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretative Outline, 1977, pp.140,1.

"Such a translation [in English] as "I am what I am" appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the [Hebrew] verbs here are imperfects. "I am" is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect... This thought is made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh, the memorial name, is made synonymous with the description "I shall continue to be what I have always been." This makes the description a restatement of Yahweh's faithfulness an assurance that he will fulfill the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".

LINK


Related blog entry:


Friday, June 5, 2015

Jehovah's Witnesses, does Luke 24:36-43 proves Jesus is raised not as a spirit?


Jesus Appears to the Disciples

36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Thanks!

Best Answer: 
In Luke 24:39-43 and John 20:27, Jesus is appearing as a materialization, not as a spirit or vision, bearing his stigmata as a sign. He even appeared in a locked room, thus proving he was a materialization.

When he appeared before his apostles as a resurrected being at Luke 24:36-43, he was now a materialization like angels had done prior. Indeed, he even had to inform them that he was not appearing as a spiritual manifestation, but as a material manifestation. As John describes, Jesus appeared—materialized—in a locked room on two separate occasions, the second for the benefit of Thomas, complete with his stigmata to drive the point home that he was resurrected. (John 20:19, 26, 27, 29) In a dynamic demonstration that he was living as a spirit, he ascended to the sky, where a cloud obscured him from view. (Acts 1:9) This was when he discarded his materialized body for the last time.

Source(s):
Jesus’ Resurrection Body

Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html

See also: Insight on the Scriptures: Resurrection (Heavenly Resurrection)
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003709

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Mormons: Do you believe the Apostle John is still alive?



As stated in D&C 7: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/7?lang=eng

Are Peter and James alive too?

If so, are they all Mormons now serving as Mormon Apostles?

(By alive, I mean never died per D&C 7.)

Related video: A humorous look at this question: http://jimspace-comic-relief.blogspot.com/2015/03/meet-donall-and-conall.html


While I chose a "best answer," I was amazed, although not surprised, at the amount of Mormon circular reasoning and dismissive comments. This is a real problem that is simply unaccounted for in Mormonism. Claiming the Apostle John never died is a patent absurdity contained in the Mormon scriptures.

Sober and objective people see this as a fatal flaw removing Mormonism from divine revelation.

Related link:

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng
See if you can find the Apostle John.



Does this diagram finally set the record straight on what the "trinity" actually is?


Here's the official explanation by a so-called "expert" in trinitarian theology:

Jesus is God, The Father is God, and The spirit is God
The father, son, and spirit are not the same person
There is One God
The spirit precedes from the father and the son is begotten of the father

Does this finally clarify the trinity?

My Answer:

Correct, that's Trinitarianism in a nutshell. That diagram is the Scutum Fidei meaning "Shield of the Faith."

However, it is diametrically opposed to Jesus Christ's own declaration at John 17:1-5, that the Father person is "the only true God." Thus, the God of the person Jesus is one person, the Father.

The Father resurrected Jesus from the grave and exalted him to a position Jesus did have before his earthly sojourn. Therefore, the Trinitarian Scutum Fidei is a misrepresentation of Biblical monotheism.

Source(s):

LINK

Friday, February 20, 2015

What does the apostate antichrist believe about Jesus?


1 John 4:2-3: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
(RSV)

The phrase "the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh" refers to Jesus' birth on earth (Galatians 4:4), not to his future coming. The NET Bible in its footnote concurs, saying: "This is the same confession as in 1 John 4:2 except the perfect participle used there is replaced by a present participle here. It is not clear why the author changed from a perfect participle in 1 John 4:2 to a present participle here. The perfect participle suggests a reference to the incarnation [Jesus' birth and life on earth] (past). The present participle could suggest a reference to the (future) second advent, but based on the similarity to 1 John 4:2 it is probably best to take it as referring to the incarnation [Jesus' birth and life on earth]." Thus, the point of 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 is the same: Denying that Jesus was human in his earthly life and ministry is apostate and of the antichrist.

Yet, some still say that 2 John 7 refers to Jesus' future coming in the flesh, thus (unwittingly?) disagreeing with the scholar(s) behind the NET Bible footnote.

Update : Hi XXX! Thanks for contributing. Well, as the NET Bible footnote said, it is probably best to take it as referring to Jesus' birth and life on earth. This agrees with the NWT-Reference footnote, which says in part: "referring to Christ’s past coming. It refers to past time, as in the case of the Gr. participle in 3Jo 3."

Regarding the two scriptures you used for support for 'dual time reference,' let me point out that "man" in 1 Timothy 2:5 would naturally refer to Jesus' experience as a man on earth during his ministry. Colossians 2:9 merely confirms that Christ's diety or divine nature exists or dwells in bodily form. Thus, all this is conveying is that Jesus' divine nature has a body. So these really do not contribute to the idea that Jesus has a physical human body outside of earth's life-sustaining atmosphere. Spirit beings such as angels and God dwell in what Jesus Christ called "the above" or "realms above" at John 8:23, a transcendent realm that Jesus said humans cannot enter at John 8:21.

Both the NET and NWT footnotes noted above harmonize with John's use of Greek, as well as with the laws of physics.

XXX asks: "Did not ALL of Jesus' miracles attest to the fact that he was above and outside of (not subject to) the laws that govern our physical universe?" Not one. Just a manipulator. [What I clearly meant by this is that Jesus was not breaking the laws of physics with his miracles, but he was temporarily manipulating mater as he used the power from his Father and God, including resurrecting others like his disciples later did.] Retaining a human body in outer space that Trinitarianism teaches per Chalcydonian dyophysitism does indeed mark a clear violation of the laws of physics that the Trinitarian Jesus must now continue to violate in micromanaging his physical human body for all eternity, just to make the Trinitarians feel all warm and fuzzy. :-) Also read Psalm 115:16 that Jesus Christ agreed with: human bodies belong on earth in accords with both the will of God and with the laws of physics that God established. Thanks for playing.

Best Answer
Asker's Choice

BAR- ANERGES

Greetings,

First, what is interesting is that even if Trinitarians apply these verses to the future coming, they cannot save themselves from being identified as Antichrist and deceivers. Because these verses clearly would apply to any religion which claimed that Jesus was both "God and man," or holding a "dual nature" instead of only "flesh"!!


Yes, there are some scholars who think 2Jn7 refers to both the past and future comings. But, as you point out Greek scholars generally agree that this refers to Christ's *past* coming:

"Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. Present middle participle of erchomai...because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ."–Robertson’s Word Pictures

"Naturally this cannot refer to the coming of Jesus Christ at his future parousia, since that is not a coming en sarki [in the flesh], but en doxe [in glory] (cf. Heb 4:13, etc.). Rather, the present tense of erchomenon [coming] is a timeless characteristic of Jesus (as the one sent by God into the world), as in Jn 3:31; 6:14; 11:27.—Rudolf Bultmann, A Commentary on The Johnannine Epistles, p. 112.

The word "coming" is a participle, so even though it is the "present tense" form it doesn't inherently have a tense but is dependent on the main verb (cf. 3 Jn 3).

Theologians who use this verse in an attempt to support their personal theology that Christ will return in the flesh require their hearers to be ignorant of the original Greek and the context of Scripture.


Here are some edited statements from various articles:

From these verses, we can see that the antichrist is a liar and a deceiver, bent on destroying a person’s relationship with Christ and with God.

“Antichrist” means ‘against (or instead of) Christ.’ So in its broadest sense, the term refers to all who oppose or lyingly claim to be the Christ or his representatives. Jesus himself said: “He that is not on my side is against me [or is antichrist], and he that does not gather with me scatters”(Lk 11:23).

The words of both Jesus and John plainly indicate that the antichrist is not a single person but is made up of many individual antichrists. Moreover, because they are false prophets, one of their main objectives is religious deception.

John specifically mentions apostates as among those of the antichrist by referring to those who "went out from us," abandoning the Christian congregation. (1Jo 2:18, 19) It therefore includes "the man of lawlessness" or "son of destruction" described by Paul, as well as the "false teachers" Peter denounces for forming destructive sects and who "disown even the owner that bought them" (2Th 2:3-5; 2Pt 2:1).

Kingdoms, nations, and organizations are similarly shown to be part of the antichrist in the symbolic description at Revelation 17:8-15; 19:19-21.-Compare Ps 2:1, 2.

From those words it is evident that the antichrist, the apostate man of lawlessness is Satan's masterpiece. It is an imitation of organized Christianity and so an opposer of it. As a replacement of true organized Christianity, it finds its expression in present-day Christendom.

The word "Christendom" is a compound word meaning "Christ's domain" or "Christ's jurisdiction." Christendom has claimed this and has sent out missionaries to pagan lands in an effort to convert all the earth to become the territory of Christendom. Their missionaries have had a part, knowingly or unknowingly, in advancing the political control as well as the commercial control of Christendom in many of these countries.

This was directly contrary to Christ's words: "My kingdom is no part of this world," and "they [Jesus' disciples] are no part of the world."—John 18:36; 17:14.


Apply this basic evidence to what happened in both world wars and current conflicts. People of the same religions met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side.

But, the definition of a "Christian" is "one who does what Christ would do": WWJD (1Pt.2:21). That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a denial of any claim to being the true Church (cf. Mt.26:52). It is truly an identification of the Antichrist!

Apostate Christianity has neither the spiritual strength nor the support of God's holy spirit to motivate people to follow the truthful teachings of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the result in Christendom is not true Christianity but in actuality antichrists, "weeds" unfit for the Kingdom (Mt13:24ff).


Yours,

BAR-ANERGES

Source:


Asker's rating & comment
Thanks, that was my thought too that the Trinitarian Jesus being 100% God on earth is in accords with the teaching of the Antichrist. Yet, Trinitarians try to say that Jesus not coming in the flesh from outer space is in accords with the teaching of the Antichrist. Irony of astronomical proportions!

Trinitarians, do you see the flawed reasoning of "I AM" in John 8:58?


Trinitarianism teaches that "I AM" is a divine name, and that it is used at John 8:58, where Jesus said according to many translations: "Before Abraham was, I am." As one apologetic Trinitarian explained:

"This is a very important verse to Trinitarians because it is one of the places we use to show that Jesus is God. We maintain that Jesus attributed the divine name of God ("I AM" from Exodus 3:14), to Himself."[1]

Now this claim can be easily tested by replacing "I AM" with another divine name or designation, like God, and observing the results.
[test]
"Before Abraham was, God."
[end of test]
This declaration as it stands is nonsensical. To make sense, it needs the words "I existed as" or "I was", or something similar: "Before Abraham was, I was God."

Does that make sense? If so, please continue reading.

The same is true with "Before Abraham was, I am." It needs more words to be complete, like "Before Abraham was, I was I AM." But, the Greek text does not say that. Therefore the Greek words 'ego eimi', translated according to many translations as "I am," are part of the sentence and should be translated likewise. "I am" is an interlinear translation or a hyper-literal translation, therefore not completing the translation process. If a Bible says something like "I have been,"[2] it shows an attempt to do just that, complete the translation process into a literal translation.

So can you see how flawed and ridiculous Trinitarian teaching is on John 8:58, regardless of its popularity?

Footnotes:
[1] Slick, Matt. John 8:58 and 10:30-33, "I am." http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-858-and-1030-33-i-am

[2] The 1996 ed. New Living Translation has “Jesus answered, ‘The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!’” It places “I am” in a footnote. (Seen here.)

Another test in context:
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, Lord.

Best Answer
Asker's Choice

Ginosko92

The is probably one of the lamest "proof text" that trinitarians use to prove the divinity of Christ!

To make a connection between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58 is beyond ridiculous!

First of all the correct rendition of Ex 3:14 is "I will be what I will be" as the footnote in the NIV correctly states. Ex 3:12 uses the same verb "eh·yeh" and is translated "I will". I AM THAT I AM is not the correct meaning of the divine name, it's not static as if God were waiting to do something. But God is ALWAYS in action and maneuvering things according to his will.

Second the Greek LXX (septuagint) renders Ex 3:14 as "ego emi ho on" or "I am THE ONE or THE BEING". The same vs adds that "THE ONE or THE BEING", not "I am" as trinitarians lamely argue, "has sent you"!

So to connect Ex 3:14 with John 8:58 is pure fiction and desperation to prove a man made doctrine!

Asker's rating & comment

Thank you! I'm sorry to report that no Trinitarians addressed my question. The Trinitarian use of John 8:58 is alarmingly unsophisticated, as were the Trinitarian responses. If you think Trinitarianism uses John 8:58 correctly, then you need to study this question.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Question on the "Immortal Soul" doctrine?


Our body has a mind. For those who believe we have an immortal soul, does it have a mind too?
If Yes, does that mean we have two minds? If No, how does it do anything after the body dies?

The question seems inevitable to consider.

------------------
My preemptive responses to anticipated answers:
'No. The soul takes our body's mind.'
Response: Our body's mind is tied-into our brain, so when our brain dies, so does the mind.
'Yes, it has a mind of its own too.'
Response: How can we have two minds?
------------------

If you could use the Bible to document your answers, that would be great.

Best Answer
Those who believe in an immortal soul believe that when we die, we take with us our thoughts, personality, memories, etc.

But we know that all that stuff is tied physically to our brain.

So those who hold to this doctrine have to explain why, if the soul has the capability to carry our mind away from the body, why does the physical body even have a brain to handle these function? It is needlessly redundant.

Either we have a functioning physical brain, plus a non-functioning spiritual "brain" that starts working immediately at death, downloading information from the physical brain then taking over.

Or we have two functioning brains - a physical and spiritual - carrying on redundant double duty.

LINK

Note: The primary reasoning I use for dismissing the immortal soul doctrine is due to the Passion Narratives. See:

A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html

Unbelievers, I have proof that Jesus is God?


Look, in John 10:38, it says "The Father is in me and I in the Father." John 14:11 reads much the same. Jesus is your Lord and Savior!

Wait a minute...

John 14:20 - "At that day you (i.e. the disciples) will know that I am in my Father and you in me, and I in you" Herp derp merp.

So a dozen disciples are partners with Jesus and God?

Or...maybe the language is FIGURATIVE, which would make sense since Aramaic and Hebrew possess far greater capacity for metaphor than English.

CHRISTIANS, stop using that verse as proof for Jesus' divinity, k thx bye.

Best Answer
I hear ya! Furthermore, in John 10:38, 14:9-11 and 17:21 the Greek word 'en,' translated as "in" as in "in the Father" and "the Father is in me," may also be translated as "in union," as seen in 14:20 and 17:21 where the disciples are also 'en' the Son and the Father. Clearly, "in union" is the intended meaning there, and surely in the other occurrences as well. This finds support in John 17:22, 23, where the NET Bible reads:

"The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one – 23 I in them and you in me – that they may be completely one [footnote: Or “completely unified.”], so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me."

Here Jesus explains that being 'en' another means being unified with another, as the NET Bible footnote points out. That unified is the intended meaning is also corroborated by John 6:56, where Jesus said: "The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him." (NET Bible) Clearly, Jesus' body and blood cannot literally reside in all Christians simultaneously, for two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

So we can see that when we follow Trinitarian reasoning to its logical conclusion, that it leads to insurmountable problems.

Source:
Read more at: Exploring a Trinitarian Black Box

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Why is it so hard for some people to understand the concept of the Christian trinity?


To me its fairly simple to understand. An analogy of the Trinity is water, or H2O. Water is a liquid. Water can also be vapour. And it can be a solid, ice. The liquid state is not ice, ice is not vapour and vapour is not liquid. They are distinct. But they are all H2O. This is the same as the trinity. God the Father, the son Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct but all the same being.

Best Answer
The H2O illustration is on the Never Use list of Trinitarian apologists like this one:

Quote:
“The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water: three forms (ice, steam, liquid) one substance.” But the greatest I ever heard was by a guy in one of my classes. He said that he thought that the Trinity was like 3-in-1 shampoo: three activities, one substance.” [Emphasis added.]
Stupid statements. Creative, but stupid. Don’t use them. Any of them. Ever.[1]

He prefers to use the diagrammatic Scutum Fidie instead, and calls the H2O illustration modalistic: "Ice, steam, and liquid are examples of the same nature which *at one time or another* has a particular mode of existence. Sometimes it is liquid, sometimes it is ice, and sometimes it is steam. God is not sometimes Son, sometimes Father, and sometimes Spirit. He is eternally each, always at the same time." Thus it is on the Trinitarian Never Use list.

I understand it that there are three people in the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead as shown in the scutum fidei. As one Trinitarian apologist explained:

Unlike traditional Judaism and Islam, the God of Christianity possesses a unique and mysterious plurality of personhood within its single divine essence. In other words, while God is one in being, he nevertheless exists as three distinct persons (or centers of consciousness). One way of expressing this special monotheism is to say that God is "one what and three whos." That is, in terms of what God is, God is one and only one divine being. But in terms of who God is, God is three distinct persons. (end quote)[2]

Thus God for the Trinitarian is not a person but a What, an impersonal Godhead, composed of three whos or divine people.

Yet, this is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the Lord Jesus Christ who fearlessly declared with a doubtlessly booming voice that the Father is the "only true God." (John 17:1-5) Thus Jesus Christ clearly believed that God is a single person, the Father.

Additionally, Hebrews 5:7 informs us that Jesus Christ even relied on his Father and God to be resurrected from death, and that his prayers were favorably heard due to his his godly fear or piety.[3]

Thus, despite all the intellectual acrobats Trinitarians must go through to support their man-made, non-biblical doctrine, it still fails to accurately and scripturally describe the Lord Jesus Christ and his almighty Father, the only true God, Jehovah.


Source:
[1] Patton, C Michael. “The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo”. . . And Other Stupid Statements. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/20...

Popular Arguments some Trinitarians use that are on a Trinitarian "Never Use" List
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/06...

[2] What a tangled web we weave...
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04...

[3] Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09...

Jehovah's Witnesses. Why does Satan hate the "Trinity" doctrine?

Note:
I am including this as it demonstrates the depths of intellectual depravity some Trinitarians are willing to plumb.

LaVey shaved his head as part of a formalized founding ritual, in the tradition of medieval executioners, carnival strongmen, and black magicians before him, to gain personal power and enhance the forces surrounding his newly-established Satanic order. It was the enactment of an allusion at the end of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Kubla Khan: an incantation rejecting the Holy Trinity and the spiritual life in favor of one devoted to Hell and material pursuits.
http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/CShistory3COS.html [asked by surfari]

Best Answer
Please notice that it does not say that Satan hates the Trinity as such. Please read it again, this time with more astute comprehension:

"an incantation rejecting the ***Holy Trinity and the spiritual life*** in favor of one ***devoted to Hell and material pursuits.***"

Did you catch the real meaning this time? You can replace "Holy Trinity" with "God and Jesus" and the meaning remains intact, for it is connected to the words "and the spiritual life."

Thus, the first clause could be replaced with 'A' meaning "Godly devotion," and the final clause "devoted to Hell and material pursuits" could be replaced with 'B' meaning "selfish materialism."

Thus that sentence can read like this: "an incantation rejecting A in favor of B." The only reason why they wrote "Holy Trinity" is because they think it's Christian, when ironically it's apostate and satanic!

Edit:
[Trinitarian*]: "God is not a person."
Jesus Christ: "God is a person." (John 17:1-5)
The Trinity and its promoters contradict Jesus Christ.


Source:
Reading comprehension

LINK

* user Grey Tower

See also: Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do demons hate the "Trinity" doctrine? http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2014/10/jehovahs-witnesses-why-do-demons-hate.html

Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do demons hate the "Trinity" doctrine?

Note:
I am including this as it demonstrates the depths of intellectual depravity some Trinitarians are willing to plumb.

You teach the union of three persons in one Godhead ... This is a piece of human fallacy and is an absurdity. (p.265) ... Christ taught a unipersonalist God ... He knows of no triune God of Whom the Catholic and other Christian denominations teach. Only the Father is God. (p. 364)
Communications with the Spirit World, Johannes Greber.

The reason the Bible does not clearly teach the Trinity doctrine is simple: It is not a Bible teaching. Had God been a Trinity, he would surely have made it clear so that Jesus and his disciples could have taught it to others. And that vital information would have been included in God’s inspired Word. It would not have been left to imperfect men to struggle with centuries later.
Watchtower 11/1/91 p.23 [asked by surfari]

Best Answer
How do you know Greber received his knowledge that the Trinity is false doctrine from the demons? Was he totally incapable of independent thought? How could you possibly know, unless you claim to have the uncanny ability to read minds? How ironic then.

It therefore appears very clear that ones who say 'Greber was a spiritist' + 'he rejected the Trinity' = 'demons hate the Trinity' are extremely shallow in their reasoning abilities, for they fail to be objective enough to think of another possibility, that he was capable of independent thought--which is apparently what Trinitarians are incapable of.


Source:
See related Q: Jehovah's Witnesses. Why does Satan hate the "Trinity" doctrine? [archived in link below] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqtgp2kkZsVmeL4d26r0iCzsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130723072617AA1kw0W

LINK


See also:





How this same questioner surfari continues to abuse over Greber:



Jehovah's Witnesses. Under what circumstances will you trust demons to tell the truth?


My answer:


Under no circumstances.

You were refuted in your two earlier attempts at presenting this same topic:
In your question "Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do demons hate the "Trinity" doctrine?" you were exposed as incapable of rational and independent thinking.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjGsVQNSrp_21AZ.4YGDIJPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130723080036AApGiQm

In your question "Jehovah's Witnesses. Why does Satan hate the "Trinity" doctrine?" you were exposed as having extremely poor reading comprehension.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqtgp2kkZsVmeL4d26r0iCzsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130723072617AA1kw0W

I will close with this:

"You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear." (James 2:19, NET Bible) Ironically, Trinitarianism rejects that "God is one," promoting instead that God is three. The demons know this is false but use it, the Trinity, to lead people away from Christ and salvation. People who can think for themselves also reject the Trinity.

Edit: Thanks for proving my point.
(Just because it's in that book doesn't necessarily mean he got it from demons. Your quote doesn't specifically say he got it from demons. It looks like you're simply assuming that, which in turn suits your sensational purposes.)

Further reading, including an appendix from JWD2: http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2011/06/extent-of-involvement-with-spiritist.html

Edit: People who say our message and/or NWT is demon-inspired have blasphemed the holy spirit. They are also liars.



LINK (proceed at your own risk)

Friday, October 10, 2014

Jehovah's Witnesses: what is an Uninspired Prophet wouldn't that be the same as a false prophet?

Best Answer

No. Per Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22 a false prophet ADDS to God’s word by making NEW predictions that fail and/or advocates worship of false gods.

An uninspired person cannot by definition add to God’s word. An uninspired INTERPRETATION of prophecy in God’s word that turns out to be a misreading of that prophecy is not a false prophecy.

Source:
False Prophecy or Misguided Interpretation of Prophecy? The Test of a Prophet.