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!

LINK

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!

LINK

---

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.

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

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html

Jesus’ Resurrection Body

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html

Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html

What a tangled web we weave...

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html

Biblical monotheism is...

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

LINK

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

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

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html

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

LINK

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):

• What a tangled web we weave... http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html
• Trinitarian symbology and mechanics: http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/06/recently-here-have-been-blogging-on.html
• Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html

LINK

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

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/12/exploring-trinitarian-black-box.html

LINK

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...

LINK

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:

• Jehovah's Witnesses. Why does Satan hate the "Trinity" doctrine? http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2014/10/jehovahs-witnesses-why-does-satan-hate.html
• Extent of involvement with spiritist Johannes Greber? http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2011/06/extent-of-involvement-with-spiritist.html

---

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)

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.

http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/prophecy.htm

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/03/false-prophecy-or-misguided.html

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-of-prophet-god-provided-means-of.html

LINK

Jehovah's Witnesses. Why did this guy not do exactly as Jesus told him to?

Luke 8:39 (NWT)
“Be on your way back home, and keep on relating what things God did for you.” Accordingly he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what things Jesus did for him.

According to you, Jesus is not God, so, when told to keep relating what God did, instead he went around talking about what the Archangel Michael / God's representative or anyone else who is not God did.

Or did he in fact do exactly as requested? He went and proclaimed what God did for him?

Best Answer

He did do what Jesus said. It went like this: "Jesus healed me through God's power." It's all in the semantics.

Also, take heed that Trinitarianism does not teach that Jesus is God. No, it teaches that Jesus is the second person of the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Why can't Trinitarians ever actually say what they believe?

Additionally, Jesus said he would be killed. Peter rebuked him, saying that he would not be killed. Trinitarianism actually agrees with Peter here. But Jesus disagrees with that thinking, calling it Satanic.

See:

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

LINK

How long does it take for a Jehovah's Witnesses to know more than MDivs & Doctorates?

"20 seconds" - Walter Martin

Honestly it depends on the specific subject. But notice what the "MDivs & Doctorates" themselves have said:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses can make a doctrinal pretzel out of the average Christian [Trinitarian] in 20 seconds,” the late U.S. evangelical minister Walter Martin once said.

American Christian fundamentalist Ron Rhodes said Jehovah’s Witnesses pose a significant challenge. “They have been trained better than any Christian [Trinitarian] denomination that I’m aware of.”^[1]

“Christians [Trinitarians] tend to be inept at responding to antitrinitarian thought and argumentation of ... Jehovah’s Witnesses.”—Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors, page 205. By Paul Copan and William Lane Craig.^[2]

LINK

(Question closed soon after I answered.)

Footnotes:
^[1] Witnesses keeping the faith http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=b3d5d95d-c598-43e5-8c0c-6811dd1895ed&sponsor=

^[2] The complete quote is: “inept at responding to antitrinitarian thought and argumentation of Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons.”

Additional reading:

• “New Poll Finds Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies” http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/10/new-poll-finds-evangelicals-favorite.html

JW's, Can you explain to me why the Holy Spirit is an Active Force instead of a 3rd person in a trinity?

i would like as much info as i can about the holy spirit, thanks.

Answer:

Consider the virgin birth of Christ. If the holy spirit is a person, the third person of the Trinitarian Godhead, then a person is responsible for Mary's pregnancy. Period. (Or in Mary's case, no period.)

Thus, it sure sounds like Trinitarianism unwittingly teaches that God had sex with Mary. It looks like a sexual union of an alien person with a human female, giving the holy spirit the role of an incubus.

If Trinitarianism responds saying that the Holy Spirit Person of God (God the Holy Spirit) used power to make Mary pregnant, then how is that any different from the holy spirit being a spiritual energy, an active force from God fulfilling God's purposes?

But there is something else to ponder. If the third person of the Godhead, the holy spirit, begot Jesus, then why is the first person of the Godhead, the Father, the father? Should it not logically be the holy spirit person? That it's not Jesus' father is another devastating yet ignored dilemma for Trinitarianism.

============
Edit:
2 Corinthians 3:17 "Now Jehovah is the Spirit." Since Jehovah is the Father, who per Trinitarianism is the First Person of the Trinitarian Godhead, this does nothing to address the Holy Spirit person. It is clearly teaching that the Father Jehovah has spirit nature. So Trinitarianism must desist from misusing this scripture like it does address the Holy Spirit person when it most clearly does not.

In conclusion, the preponderance of scriptures makes the holy spirit impersonal. Other scriptures that have the holy spirit speaking are anthropomorphisms. Remember, if the holy spirit is a person, then:

1. The holy spirit filled the role of an incubus
2. Mary was not a virgin mother of Jesus
3. The holy spirit is Jesus' father, not the Father person

All three of these are anathema. Thus, we can be most thankful that the holy spirit is an 'active force.'

@ [name removed]. Thanks for asking. Trinitarianism teaches that a person got Mary pregnant. That it was a divine spirit person is irrelevant. The Trinitarian Holy Spirit acted like an incubus demon and simulated sexual intercourse with Mary, getting her pregnant. Thus, she could hardly be an honest virgin. Jesus replaces Adam as our father, and it is significant that Jesus never called the Holy Spirit his father, like he surely would have if Trinitarianism were true. Mary is only an honest virgin if the holy spirit is an impersonal utilitarian divine energy.

@ [name removed]: Trinitarianism teaches that the Holy Spirit person got Mary pregnant. What you're uncomfortable with are the unrealized implications of that doctrine. Mind you, I'm being objective as opposed to warped.

Source:
Holy Spirit and the Virgin Birth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism-part-ii.html

LINK

Note: The iconographic depiction of the Trinidad trificela (three-faced Trinity) seen above fell into disuse after being outlawed as heterodox in the wake of the Reformation.

When Jesus said he would return did he stipulate it would be in the flesh ?

Best Answer

No, Jesus did not stipulate what body he would return in, much less in the flesh. He did indicate though that it would NOT be flesh at John 8:21-3 where he said that he came from a higher realm where people could not enter on their own.

Annsan_In_Him compared Acts 1:11 with 1 Corinthians 15, that we “do a mental replay in reverse” with Acts 1:11. Based on that, Jesus ascended with a physical body and was obscured by a cloud (Acts 1:9) and then he returns with a different body, a “'heavenly body'”. This is correct. But notice also that the apostles were not literally watching Christ’s journey all the way to heaven. Thus he must have entered the spirit heavens as a spirit being, as 1 Corinthians 15:45 says that Jesus “became a life-giving spirit,” invisible to human eyes. (1 Corinthians 15:50) So, at most, the apostles saw only the beginning of Jesus’ journey; they could not watch its ending, his return to the heavenly presence of his Father. (John 20:17) This they could only discern with their eyes of faith.

In fact, in harmony with John 8:21-3, Jesus said shortly before his death: “A little longer and the world will behold me no more.” (John 14:19) He also said that “the kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness.” (Luke 17:20) So he indicated his return would not be in the flesh.

However, Annsan_In_Him also said: “beware any translation that tries to use 1 Peter 3:18 to say Jesus was resurrected as a spirit.” Yet, the NET Bible, NASB, NRSV (main text and interlinear), NJB, and the ASV read “in the spirit,” and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot has the similar translation of “to the spirit.” So it is not just the NWT that has “in the spirit.” Thus that concern about the NWT has been deflated.

Additionally, the account at Luke 24:36-43 that she referred to actually proves that Jesus is a spirit as he appeared in the midst of people inside a locked room: thus he was materializing a human body from his spiritual existence.


Source:
Jesus’ Resurrection Body http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130620014508AA6nWjp

LINK

Jehovah's Witnesses, Does St. Paul agree with Christ' Physical Ressurection?

In 1 Timothy 1:20, the apostle Paul said he had handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. The two blasphemers had been excluded from the church. Out in the world, away from the church, they would be open to the full force of the god of that worldly system. In 2 Timothy 2:17–18, we discover what these men did to warrant expulsion from the church: they had denounced the physical resurrection and were dividing the church by teaching an early form of the heresy of Gnosticism


2 Timothy 2:17–18 (ESV)
17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

Answer:

The expression “saying that the resurrection has already happened” is vague and firm definitions of what Hymenaeus and Philetus taught is frankly impossible as we do not have their versions of what they taught. Saying it was Gnostic is difficult to prove as Gnostics believed in a divine spark that was entombed in human flesh.[1] Thus when the flesh died the divine spark was liberated, not resurrected.

Evidently this was their teaching: that the resurrection was merely a spiritual one in the sense of being a **symbolic kind,** and that the dedicated Christians had **already had their resurrection,** that this was all there was to the matter and there was no further resurrection in the future under God’s Messianic Kingdom. Perhaps they were quoting out of context Paul’s statement that Christians had been dead in their sins but were made alive through God’s spirit. (Ephesians 2:1-6) Indeed, twisting Paul’s words to promote errant teaching was a problem in the first century as Peter testified at 2 Peter 3:15-16.

That Jesus was resurrected as a spirit is shown in 1 Corinthians 15:45, that plainly declares that Jesus was resurrected as a “life-giving spirit.” (NET Bible)

Concerning 1 Peter 3:15: If the NWT “has been deliberately altered” to say “in the spirit,” translating the Greek word DE as “in,” then to be consistent the Trinitarian NET Bible, NASB, NRSV (main text and interlinear), NJB, and the ASV have also been deliberately altered as it reads the same! (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot has the similar translation of "to the spirit".) Thus that accusation has gone up in a puff of smoke. The NET Bible in its footnote says in part that this verse is about “modes of existence: the realm of unregenerate earthly life versus eternal heavenly life.” Thus, the translation of “in the spirit” is both valid and harmonious with other scriptures, like 1 Corinthians 15:45 and Jesus' appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus at Acts 26:13. There, Jesus Christ radiated light "beyond the brilliance of the sun" at midday. Clearly then he was a transcendent spirit being and not a resurrected human in outer space micromanaging his flesh![2] Another scripture harmonious with “in the spirit” is Hebrews 5:7 as it places Jesus' being in the flesh in the past! Therefore when the resurrected Jesus said at Luke 24:39 that “a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have” he was speaking with a materialized body. It must be remembered that he appeared in their midst in a locked room, thus proving he was a spirit being materializing before them.

Thus the unanimous voice of Scripture clearly shows that Jesus is thankfully no longer in the flesh.

In conclusion, the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus is not the same as the Bible teaching of Jesus’ resurrection as a spirit being. Their teaching was more of a symbolic abstraction that denied the full force and reality of the resurrection.

Source:
[1] This is actually akin to the Trinitarian Jesus who was a divine person encased in his human nature flesh. Thus, Trinitarianism is clearly akin to the Gnostic heresy.

[2] According to Trinitarian Chalcedonian Dyophysitism, Jesus is now “truly man” “soul and body” in outer space lacking an astronaut suit and thus Jesus must eternally micromanage his flesh so it can survive! How absurd and insulting to Jesus Christ!

Additional reading:
Jesus’ Resurrection Body http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html

Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html

LINK

Mormon Questions Ask Here!!?

Ok so I watched the BBC Programme on Mormonism and it is COMPLTED CRUPTED.. I as where many others shocked when it came out with so much lies... So I have had a lot of questioned about it all... So this page is for me and other LDS to answer as many question as we can to put the facts right... SO ASK AWAY!!! :D

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Hi,
(1) If Heavenly Father took back the plates for their own protection, then why did he not do the same for all other Bible manuscripts like the biblical documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Why did he not preserve them instead of letting them rot in caves?

(2) Mormonism makes salvation impossible for this reason: It has a 'no blood before Adam's Fall' doctrine, including no children or death in the pre-Fall Animal Kingdom.[1] Additionally, the Fall is described as a blessing in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 2:22-5. The problem is that it presents blood as a product of Adam's transgression, yet Jesus had blood,[2] but he was free of the affects of Adam's transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15) Therefore, what we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless—he did not have any products of Adam's transgression, but Mormonism gives him just that, blood from Adam's transgression.

Edit:
@ phrog: Hi there!
(1) Hiding them is both inconsistent and illogical for a loving God. A loving God would have the "gold" plates (or gold-plated tumbaga plates if you will) on public display for scientific examination. Thus, the fatal problem remains.

(2) It's from the official LDS website, as well as from your leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Russell M. Nelson who published these views in the The Ensign of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So yes, serious Mormons have to believe the above about blood. Thus, the fatal contradiction remains.

@ Marco/phrog: Hi there!
If you are having trouble following my thinking, then how do you know I'm "making a pretty big assumption on this"? :-) Looks like this is something you need to take more seriously. In the meantime, the fatal problems remain.

[This Mormon claimed circuitously that Adam received blood, not due to transgressing, but due to becoming human.]

To this, I replied:

The LDS Adam became human because of his transgression. I'm afraid you're clearly arguing in circles, dancing around this fatal soteriological contradiction.

Source(s):

[1] "Fall of Adam." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/fall-of-ada… This is taught elsewhere too.

[2] "Christ." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/christ?lang… In order for Jesus to be the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), he would have to be what Adam lost and voluntarily sacrifice that to be the ransom. Mormonism makes that impossible.

Link

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus?

Jesus as the resurrected divine Son of Man

During His earthly life and ministry He did the very things we would expect the Creator God to do.

He did miracles. He raised people from the dead, turned water into wine.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -John 1:1

Additional Details

It's a shame you guys had to re-edit your own bible.

Answer:

Hi there! He did those miracles because "God was with him." (Acts 10:38, see also 1Cor. 1:24)
Additionally, you may be surprised to learn that the Trinitarians changed John 1:1c to read "the Word was God," as the Greek text literally reads "the Word was a god," as corroborated by a translation of John from Greek 1,700 years ago, as it reads the same as discovered only after the NWT was published.[1]

To address your initial question, far from denying the divinity or deity of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses affirm it with the loudest voice! This is clearly seen in the scripture you referenced: John 1:1, where you dispute the translation of "a god." Here we affirm in the clearest way that Jesus is divine.

Perhaps this question arises over a common misunderstanding about monotheism. Monotheism includes the existence of other inhabitants in heaven. But we don't give exclusive devotion to those, we give exclusive devotion to the almighty Creator, Jehovah God.

Ironically, it is the Trinitarians who deny the divinity of Christ. For instance, it is believed by them that Jesus is fully man and fully divine in heaven. Yet this is an abstraction that violates what Jesus and Paul taught about heaven. (Matthew 16:17; John 8:21, 23; 1 Corinthians 15:50; see also Psalm 115:16) So since the Trinitarian divinity of Christ is a clear violation of both the Scriptures and universal laws that God established, it cannot exist. Thus, Trinitarianism has defined the divinity of Christ out of existence.

Consider also how Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was an incarnation on earth and how this violates the scriptures and nullifies Jesus' sacrificial death:

• An incarnation could never offer himself as a corresponding ransom for the sins of humanity like Jesus did. (1 Timothy 2:5, 6)
• An incarnation could never fully "sympathize with our weaknesses" like Jesus did. (Hebrews 4:15)
• An incarnation is not "lower than angels" like Jesus was, but is still a spirit. (Hebrews 2:7, 9)
• An incarnation could instantly heal injuries no matter how serious, as Jesus could not without his God's power. (Acts 10:38)[2]

Thus we can be most thankful that Jesus was not an incarnation but was born from a woman as Paul told us at Galatians 4:4. Any religious system that denies this basic teaching is condemned per Galatians 1:8.

Thank you for asking this question and I hope you give some prayerful attention to the reasoning here.

Source(s):

[1] Coptic John 1:1 and the New World Translation http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/09/coptic-john-11-and-new-world.html

[2] Additional reading: Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html
Do You Reject Trinitarianism? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html

LINK

If there was no rain before the flood?

how did the plants receive moisture? How did inland lakes receive water? What happened in the process of making rain? If so, where did the water vapour go? What happens to the water vapour in the clouds? Did god somehow absorb it out? Shouldn't there be NO plants? There are studies showing that the Sahara was once a large rainforest, now its a wasteland. Why? Lack of rain. Was the entire world a desert then?

My Answer:

A consideration of Genesis 2:5, 6 addresses your question.

“Now there was as yet no bush of the field found in the earth [erets] and no vegetation of the field was as yet sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain upon the earth [erets] and there was no man to cultivate the ground [adamah]. 6 But a mist would go up [or, “springs would well up”—NET Bible] from the earth [erets] and it watered the entire surface of the ground [adamah].”

Verse 7 is necessary to read in order to place these verses into their chronological sequence. It informs us that “God proceeded to form the man [adam] out of dust from the ground [adamah].” This is more significant than many realize. Verses 5, 6 are thus placed before the creation of Adam, during the second creative day described at Genesis 1:10-13. It was this watered soil, adamah, that Adam was created from. Thus, it must have preceded Adam. Significantly, when God told Noah at Genesis 7:4 that he would ‘make it rain on the earth,’ Noah did not seek clarification as if he never experienced that before.

Thus, we may safely reason that:

(1) it had rained during the antediluvian period.
(2) Genesis 2:5, 6 refers to a very early time in earth's history, likely during the Precambrian.[1]

Genesis was not written with modern scientists in mind, but it does harmonize with modern science.

Source(s):

[1] A History Channel video I have states that during the late Hadean when the earth had cooled and the crust had formed, that trapped water escaped and watered the earth.

Link

Based on the teachings of Christ and the Bible, which is the way Luke 23:43 should ACCURATELY be translated?

1)
"And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” "
~ Luke 23:43 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/...

Or...

# 2)
"Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” "
~ Luke 23:43 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea…


For those of you who for whatever reason can't see the difference, the difference is in the position of the comma. Should the comma be placed AFTER the word "today" (# 1), or should it be placed BEFORE the word "today" (# 2).

The entire meaning of the scripture is affected by the comma placement.

When answering, please keep in mind that the Bible shows. reveals and teaches that after Jesus was executed he was dead for 3 days BEFORE he was resurrected to life.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Number 1. Supporting this, Abernathy stated:
(quote) It is the most "common" in that most Bible translations put the comma before the word "today." But Bible translation accuracy is not a democracy.

The original Greek did not have punctuation, and the original writer and readers wouldn't have had any problem understanding the verse. But today this placement of comma (required in English translations) is not so straightforward.

In favor of placing the comma before "today," I have only heard the explanation that it would have been superfluous for Jesus to tell the criminal that he was telling him something that day.

In favor of placing the comma after today, it is pointed out this was a common semitic idiom, used to show the certainty of something. A similar idiom is used some 40 times in the book of Deuteronomy.

The accusation that this is a JW specific issue is easily proved wrong. For example, the best manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic version, perhaps made in the late 2nd century says this at Luke 23:43:
ϩΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΑΚ ΜΠΟΟΥ ϪЄ ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ ΝΜΜΑΙ ϩΜ ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС
Truly I am telling you today that you will be with me in paradise.

The Coptic particle ϪЄ (je) means "that" and can function as a comma in Coptic. It is placed after, not before, "today." The Sahidic Coptic is the translation closest in time to when Luke was written, and reflects a translation similar to the NWT at Luke 23:43. (end quote)[1]

Trinitarianism however depends on Jesus not really sacrificing his life to provide a ransom, therefore it cannot except that Jesus was really dead,[2] as the link to the Trinitarian explanation that BibleChooser provided explains. Consequently, Trinitarianism must ultimately deny the ransom sacrifice. Therefore, the Insight article stands correct: "Jesus himself was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) He ascended to heaven 40 days later.--Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9."

@ BenjaminTapia, hi there. Well, we're created with the power of reason (1 John 1:4) to be able to sort everything out. Others remain behind in the darkness, but Christ's true followers bear the distinctive emblem of light.

Source(s):

[1] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…

Edit: [2] Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.”
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…
Regarding this, consider the conversation Jesus had with Peter recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Here, Jesus made it very clear that he would be killed. But Peter rebuked him, saying: “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” (Matthew 16:22, NASB) Here, Trinitarianism appears to agree with Peter’s rebuke. But Jesus called such reasoning satanic, and thoughts of men alienated from God.

LINK

Appendix

Interlinear translation of the Sahidic Coptic Luke 23:43:

Compact:

ΠЄϪΑϤ ΔЄ ΝΑϤ ϪЄ

He said however to him,

ϩΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΑΚ ΜΠΟΟΥ ϪЄ ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ ΝΜΜΑΙ ϩΜ ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС.

truly I say it to you today, you will be with me in the paradise.

Parsed:

ΠЄϪΑϤ	ΔЄ	ΝΑϤ	ϪЄ.
he said	however	to him	,

ϩΑΜΗΝ	ϮϪШ	ΜΜΟС	ΝΑΚ	ΜΠΟΟΥ	ϪЄ
truly	I say	it	to you	today	,

ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ	ΝΜΜΑΙ	ϩΜ	ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС.
you will be	with me	in	the paradise.

---

Also note that even if the #2 example above is correct, that this could simply mean that the criminal was as good as being in paradise with Jesus that very day, that as far as he knew, it would appear that he was with Jesus that very day—even though it was not literally that day. This idiomatic way of speaking would in no way be insincere. (1 Peter 2:22) Thus, no matter how you slice it, Luke 23:43 does not support the immortality of the soul nor Trinitarianism.

---

See also:

• Coptic John 1:1 and the New World Translation
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/09/coptic-john-11-and-new-world.html
• When will the evildoer be in Paradise? (Reasoning From the Scriptures)
  http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989252#h=18