The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Stranger
Posts: 2707
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#41 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Proselytiser of Jah wrote: 3 months ago I agree he had to be obedient, but this tells me he isn't equal.

Well then think about this one for at least a few moments instead of immediately forming a rebuttal and opening up gates that have no guards.

..........................................................................................{"(John 16:25)"}..................................................................



Have you crossed over or are you still hearing parables?


Stranger, (Jn 16:27 KJV)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuDCi5neNMM

Stranger
Posts: 2707
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#42 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Proselytiser of Jah wrote: 3 months ago To advocate a Trinity of equality on these scriptures we're discussing, is putting the cart before the horse.

So far Proz, I really have not heard the Trinity being favored among the commentators including myself, and it's a little surprising you even capitalized the T, was that a typo or were you giving your proper due respect for an Entity that just well maybe. :)


Stranger, (Col 2:8)

Stranger
Posts: 2707
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#43 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Proselytiser of Jah wrote: 3 months ago If I'm to understand, you quoted that verse to show YHWH spoke those words, yes? And are pointing out Jesus also spoke those words? And therefore you are drawing an equality?

Or did I misread?

That's not the way I would explain it. First I heard Jesus speak the words and then was directed to what you call YHWH speaking them first. I was not making a comparison of the separation of the two at all, I was only highlighting that it has been spoken. Therefore I have no reason to distinguish an equality, and to tell you honestly, it's not something I think about anymore. I used to, like I told you, I believed everything you believe now.


There's no doubt in my mind that you've missed any of your studies and that you are well ahead of the current flow that exists among the scholars. The Holy Spirit's permitted magic is a thing to behold, don't let it slip on by you.



Stranger, (Jn 14:26)

Stranger
Posts: 2707
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#44 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Proselytiser of Jah wrote: 3 months ago But the way I reason, is that God was "in Jesus", rather than Jesus being God himself, so Jesus "carries God with him" by being his agent, and having God's power reside in him, just as it later did with the Apostles;

It may have slipped your mind that Jesus was an Apostle too. (Heb 3:1) How much later on are you talking about? That being said, remind yourself what the Holy Spirit told Mary to call the Boy. (Matt 1:23)

I hear your explanation Proz, but I also hear the Holy Spirit's. So, here we are, if I'm to believe Jesus is God then I also believe that God was an Apostle. Going into the Temple of God, Jesus cast out all the riff raff did he not? And when He was done flipping the tables boldly said "My House" shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of theives". (Matt 21:13)

He didn't call it the Father's House or the Father and Son's House. That was not a now you see Him now you don't trick, it was a now you see Him and you better know the Authority of the Christ. (Matt 21:13)


Stranger, ( 2Cor 5:17)

Get out of her
Posts: 1228
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#45 Post by Get out of her » 3 months ago

Based alone on the fact that the literal definition of -Apostle is basically -appointed one or one sent on a mission, do we see yet another problem with the notion of Jesus allegedly being Jehovah or otherwise the almighty God and Father who demands actual worship and prayer? (He 3:1) If Jesus truly qualifies as such then we need to consider the question of -why would he ever need someone to appoint him or send him on an assignment? or for that matter how would it even be possible for someone to do so in the first place? Jesus himself made it clear that in the case of sinful and imperfect humans, prayer is something that goes"THROUGH" him, not TO him. (Joh 14:6) This is the very definition of a "mediator" which is of course a kind of conduit or go-between. (1Ti 2:5)

With that said, (at risk of sounding rather blunt or straightforward), endeavoring to lean on accounts like Matthew 1:23 to support your position here Stranger is frankly a rather gross misapplication of Holy Text. Jesus is quoting here from passages like Isaiah 56:7 and 2 Chronicles 6:33 where the "house" in question is explicitly identified as Jehovah's.

Agape love;
Sol

Stranger
Posts: 2707
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#46 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Get out of her wrote: 3 months ago do we see yet another problem with the notion of Jesus allegedly being Jehovah or otherwise the almighty God and Father who demands actual worship and prayer?

Hi Sol,

If you're asking just me I don't see the problem, I used to but have overcame that hurdle. (Heb 8:6-7)

Get out of her wrote: 3 months ago With that said, (at risk of sounding rather blunt or straightforward), endeavoring to lean on accounts like Matthew 1:23 to support your position here Stranger is frankly a rather gross misapplication of Holy Text. Jesus is quoting here from passages like Isaiah 56:7 and 2 Chronicles 6:33 where the "house" in question is explicitly identified as Jehovah's.

I don't "lean" on any particular scripture Sol, I use the entire Word of God which is Christ Jesus. (Jn 1:1) compare the scripture you quoted (
Get out of her wrote: 3 months ago (1Ti 2:5)

I'll be blunt too Sol, what your spilling out is nothing than I and I would assume some others already know from our backgrounds as JW's. Your question was loaded like a question straight from the WT and everyone's answer will be the same even underlined.


As far as (Mt1:23), what I will say is that the Holy Spirit was Born and Jesus was Born. (Matt 1:18) You call it a weak scripture to lean on, I call it one of if not the most supreme of all of Christianity. How could it not be?



Stranger, (Acts 4:12)

Get out of her
Posts: 1228
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#47 Post by Get out of her » 3 months ago

Stranger wrote:
I don't see the problem,
I used to but have overcame that hurdle
I don't "lean" on any particular scripture Sol,
I use the entire Word of God which is Christ Jesus.
I'll be blunt too Sol,
I would assume some others already know
I will say is that the Holy Spirit was Born and Jesus was Born.
I call it one of if not the most supreme of all of Christianity.
What makes this even more amazing is that it was gleaned from only four sentences! Admittedly when we have I problems it is indeed very difficult to see our way through ANY hurdle. This would certainly include the problem of being more concerned about how we might personally prefer to understand things than learning to simply pay attention to what the Holy Scriptures actually teach. This issue becomes all the more serious however when we become doggedly determined to influence others to adopt understandings as ridiculous as associating the birth of the holy spirit with the birth of Jesus simply because WE might be foolish enough to do so. Really?! We are expected to believe that God's holy spirit did not exist until the early part of the first century because Stranger said so?!! Obviously on this occasion you did not even attempt to cite one single scripture to support this utter nonsense. But then why exactly would you when this is all about what Stranger has to say on things?

Just in case you are unaware, at least most of the people here did not come to learn about your personal views and understandings of spiritual matters any more than they came to learn about mine or anyone else's. Rest assured what they are most interested in is what can genuinely be demonstrated as scriptural and what cannot. With that in mind the time is long overdue to address what basically seems to be the go-to response you always fall back on when you realize you are unable to defend yet another ridiculous assertion of yours with the scriptures.
Your question was loaded like a question straight from the WT and everyone's answer will be the same even underlined.
For some reason you seem to imagine that people don't see this for what it is, namely an open admission of defeat. Why else would you often pretend as if everyone here is suddenly unaware that I am very much at odds with the Watchtower organization?

In all fairness, the reason it is so easy for myself and others to continually refute your positions on things with the scriptures is because you have made the mistake that most of us did (unfortunately) when we finally came to realize that we were being misled by this organization. Rather than becoming determined to begin relying strictly on prayer and the holy writings themselves for genuine answers, we have most often chosen the approach essentially that since the figurative Pharisees are clearly not teaching the truth of God's word, this must mean that the figurative Sadducees were right all along to oppose them and separate themselves from them. In essence we come to conclude that the Sadducees (sadly, you see?) are the ones disseminating the truth of God's word. The need to avoid this mistake in a setting of complete national apostasy is precisely what is being illustrated for us in symbolic/prophetic dramas such as found at Daniel 1:8, not to mention more direct or straightforward commands such as found at Matthew 16:6 or 2 Corinthians 6:17. If there is anything unusual here it is the rather remarkable degree of pride and stubbornness involved in clinging tenaciously to false teachings even after people have thoroughly demonstrated them to be unscriptural. This brings me to yet another unscriptural position of yours:

Stranger wrote:
Proselytiser of Jah wrote: ↑5 days ago I agree he had to be obedient, but this tells me he isn't equal.

Well then think about this one for at least a few moments instead of immediately forming a rebuttal and opening up gates that have no guards.

..........................................................................................{"(John 16:25)"}..................................................................



Have you crossed over or are you still hearing parables?


Stranger, (Jn 16:27 KJV)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuDCi5neNMM
First of all, should it not be recognized as a kind of big red flag from the word –go when someone regularly feels the need to refer to things like You-Tube videos as their point of authority or otherwise to support the way they wish to understand the holy writings? In my case I strongly recommend you substitute this particular video you promote with scriptural prophesies such as found at Matthew 24:45 and 25:34-40. This is because even while Jesus and John the Baptist (the "two witnesses" involved in the FIFTH foretold "birth of the barren woman") were in the midst of assisting Jehovah with once again CREATING the conditions in which genuine theocratic shepherds could …"speak plainly about the father" rather than with things like parables, "typical representations," "prophetic dramas," "illustrations," "likenesses" or "figures of speech," they were foretelling times in which their own anointed "brothers" would find THEMSELVES in desperate need of spiritual food and clothing. (He 8:5) (Jer 15:9) (Joh 16:25) (Mt 13:10, 11) (Ho 12:10) What is equally important for us to understand however is the precise settings or time frames in which this situation would exist. But why is that and what exactly is this setting or time frame in question?

The answer to this is found in accounts like 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3:

"However brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us to the effect that the day of Jehovah is near.
Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it WILL NOT COME unless the APOSTASY COMES FIRST and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction."


Are we seeing the point here? Just as really the most basic logic alone would dictate, there is of course never any NEED for a "coming of the kingdom" or "holy nation" and it's commensurate true worship if an "apostasy" on the part of genuine theocratic shepherds has not REMOVED these things from the earth in the first place! Moreover if even the ONE TRUE nation and its corresponding religious teachings has suffered the "removal" and subsequent "replacement" mentioned in accounts like Daniel 11:31 DUE to this "apostasy," then what would that imply with regard to all the various teachings and practices of OTHER religious groups that were NEVER truly a part of it? (Da 11:30-32)

In other words, unless we are to take the position that we currently ARE NOT anticipating another foretold "coming of the kingdom," we ourselves have just confirmed that we are right back in the situation described in accounts like Hosea 12:10. Yes the fact is for thousands of years now Jehovah has established a very consistent pattern not only of initiating another birth of his kingdom with a ministry performed exclusively towards the anointed ones, but one that has ALWAYS been marked with "making likenesses" or illustrating things with parables.

Did we fail to observe how the teachings of Jehovah's appointed earthly shepherds suddenly became much more straightforward immediately after yet another kingdom covenant was renewed and inaugurated in 33 CE? If so, then we would do well to carefully compare the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus in the Gospel accounts with those of the Apostles all the way up until Revelation. Why did things suddenly become much more symbolic and difficult to understand in Revelation? This is for precisely the reason that John states in accounts like 1 John 2:18 and Revelation 17:10; namely because mankind was once again dealing with a spiritual "FALL" of Jehovah's nation which ALWAYS begins transforming or reducing what WERE ..."many members of the body of the CHRIST" into what are now many …"members of a HARLOT," or even (as the Apostle John words it) "many ANTICHRISTS." (1 Cor 6:15 12:12) (Ro 12:4, 5) (1 Joh 2:18) (Re 18:2)

Whether we realize it or not the humble "repentance" being addressed in accounts like Matthew 3:1, 2 and 4:17 is all about who if ANY among the anointed ones in these settings are willing to accept responsibility for this rather sobering reality. (Mt 22:14) Nevertheless the point here that is being made clear in accounts like Hosea 12:10 (penned nearly three millenniums ago) is that Jehovah has been utilizing this method of communicating to anointed "virgins" and "widows" of a broken holy marriage covenant all along. (Mt 25:1, 2) (La 1:1, 4) Moreover just as the prophet Malachi pointed out, he is not going to suddenly "change" his methods merely because ones like Stranger might like him to or even insist he already has based on some particular You-Tube video he watched. (Mal 3:6) (Matt 25:1, 2) It is beginning to appear that I might need to completely disengage with you in scriptural discussions as things are just getting much too ridiculous here. With all due love and respect I genuinely fear I may no longer even be able to dignify many of your statements with an answer. (2 Ti 2:23)

Agape love;
Sol

Stranger
Posts: 2707
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#48 Post by Stranger » 3 months ago

Get out of her wrote: 3 months ago We are expected to believe that God's holy spirit did not exist until the early part of the first century because Stranger said so?!! Obviously on this occasion you did not even attempt to cite one single scripture to support this utter nonsense. But then why exactly would you when this is all about what Stranger has to say on things?

Well Solomon, you speak as if you have a mouse in your pocket or your house is full of adherents. That's nice, but not accurate now is it? The Holy Spirit has been around a long time, how long, I do not know. I do believe that the Holy Spirit was born into the flesh of Jesus without a doubt. (Gen 6:3 KJV) (Matt 1:18) You say that's utter nonsense and even go as far as calling me an antichrist in so many words for even bringing this fact to print but what I can tell you is that an antichrist is one who does not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. (1Jn 4:2-3) That's just plain common sense with or without your koine Greek.
Get out of her wrote: 3 months ago It is beginning to appear that I might need to completely disengage with you in scriptural discussions as things are just getting much too ridiculous here. With all due love and respect I genuinely fear I may no longer even be able to dignify many of your statements with an answer.

Sol, that's your choice, just like when you made a choice to come to this topic you know nothing about or have any faith in. (Matt 8:26)

Get out of her wrote: 3 months ago First of all, should it not be recognized as a kind of big red flag from the word –go when someone regularly feels the need to refer to things like You-Tube videos as their point of authority or otherwise to support the way they wish to understand the holy writings?

A big red flag? :redflag: If the spirit moves you let it groove you like the song says and the Bible as well, (Col 3:16)



Stranger, (Ps 57:7)

goghtherefore
Posts: 285
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: The Trinity: Given by God or Sourced by Satan? (A Commentary)

#49 Post by goghtherefore » 3 months ago

Re: "... the need to refer to things like You-Tube videos as their point of authority or otherwise to support the way they wish to understand the holy writings?"

Reminds me of a tune:

Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X85txs60yY

:whistle:
“This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”
Luke 9:35

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Google [Bot] and 0 guests