Biblical Proof Text of the Trinity: All Christian Apologists welcome to join.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
45: Why does the Father command that all should honor the Son just the SAME as they honor the Father (John 5:23)? Why does the Father draw ALL to the Son (John 6:44)? Who is the Father the witness of (I John 5:9-12)?

46: Can you know you have eternal life right now? Does I John 5:13 teach what the WTS believes?

47: Have you been born again (John 3:3)? Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ (I John 5:1)? Do you believe what the Bible says about this or the WTS?

48: Would a JW be disfellowshipped today if you believed and taught what the Watchtower Society said was the truth in 1920?

49: Would a JW in 1920 have been disfellowshipped then if he taught what the WTS says is the truth in 2003?
  1. First Watchtower president and founder Charles Taze Russell taught that the door in heaven to be part of the “anointed” Class closed in 1881. Second president Judge Rutherford said that 1935 marked the last chance to be part of the “anointed” class, and everyone who becomes a JW after 1935 was part of the “great crowd”. Who was right? Russell? Rutherford? Or neither? Where in the Bible does it say the door to heaven closed in 1935??
51: Have thousands of JWs died believing Watchtower “errors” according to present Watchtower “light”? Considering that WTS doctrines and practices have been continually changing, can you be sure the same thing won’t happen to you?

Do you know for sure that tomorrows “truth” isn’t today’s “error”?

52: Can you learn the truth by reading the Bible alone? What would you learn if you read the Bible alone? Why does the WTS say that if you read the Bible alone you will “ revert right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago…!” (WT 8/15/81, p. 28,29)?

If that is true then who really are the “apostates”, Christians who read the Bible and believe what it says or JWs who read the Watchtower publications giving the WTS interpretations of what the Bible says?

53: Can you be saved by your house to house work? Why does the Watchtower say salvation is a reward and to put your faith in a Victorious Organization (March 1, 1979 WT cover-article p. 12). Doesn’t the Bible say salvation is a gift (not a reward) Ephesians 2:8,9) and to put your faith in Jesus Christ to be saved? (John 3)

54: Isn’t what Jesus said true of you as a Jehovah’s Witness when he said “You search the scriptures because you think by means of them you will get eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify of ME, yet you refuse TO COME TO ME TO HAVE LIFE.” (John 5:39-40)? Have you come to Jesus? Have you called on his name (I Corinthians 1:2)? Could you do what Thomas did (John 20:28)? Why not?

55: After reading these questions are you going to follow what the WTS says on page 105 of the March 1, 1966 WT magazine? “Therefore, how will you respond when pointed statements are made about false religious teachings and corrupt practices? Will you immediately condemn the person or organization making the expose? Do you feel it is all right to teach lies and misrepresent God’s Word, but wrong to expose the error? Contrary to what some may think, it is not unkind and unloving to lay bare falsehood and corruption.”

The real issue when you are done with these questions is are you going to believe the Bible or the Watchtower Society. Are you going to accept what Christianity has believed for nearly 2000 years or the teachings of a group founded by a man (Charles Taze Russell) whose books have been proven to contain false prophecy. Jesus said you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. If you would like more information or have questions or want to attempt to answer these questions e-mail: CARESIPeter315@aol.com

tektonics.org/guest/500cares.html
 
b_justb said:
Daniel Marsh, dude you have to stop already …
Click to expand...
My point is, Steve keeps ignoring Bowman’s outline on the trinity which I posted links to a few times now. Manny ( I think ) has posted many scriptures that he also ignores.

Steve, has yet to explain for example why Matthew 3:3 applies Isaiah 40 which is about Jehovah to Jesus?

In researching the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, in Revelation we found a text that says God died, he has not answered that one either.

And, there are others that he has not answered as of yet.

In fact, he keeps asking the same old “logic” question, and I posted an answer from Augustine which he has also ignored.

We posted many quotes from the church fathers that proves that the early church believed that Jesus is God. He has ignored that too.

He claims to be an independent bible student doing his own research and yet he was caught copying and pasting from the Watchtower, the only place on the internet where that quote exists. The fact is, Steve is as dependent on the watchtower as we are dependent on the church.

Steve has no anchor because he ignores 2,000 years of church history.

A challenge was issued to Steve, and to my knowledge he has ignored that too.

The fact is, there were no Jehovah’s Witnesses as they define their theology before the 1800’s.

Steve’s sect like the Mormons claims to have restored chistianity, when in fact there is NO proof that their version of Chrisitanity existed in 90 AD to 300 AD.

Steve is depending on doctrines of men and as such he is without the anchor of the church which is the foundation and pilliar of truth.

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Christ promised to be with the church until the end. He also taught that the Gates or authority of Hades will not previal against the church. For Steve’s sect to be right Jesus would have to be a Liar and God unable or unwilling to fulfill his promises through Jesus — based on John 5 those promises comes from God the Father himself because Jesus did not act or teach alone.

The thing that is most distribing is the fact that the NWT is concept by concept Greber’s NT and he was a spiritualist who translated his NT with help of demons.

👍
 
Daniel the Son, Son of Daniel, Daniel’s Son, I think Augustine explains my and our thinking best,

Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine) > Tractate 39 (John 8:26-27)
  1. What I say you may gather from daily analogies. So it is with one man and another, if the one be a father, the other his son. He is man as regards himself, but a father as regards his son; and the son man as respects himself, but a son as respects his father. For father is a name given relatively, and so with son; but these are two men. And certainly God the Father is Father in a relative sense, that is, in relation to the Son; and God the Son is Son relatively, that is, in relation to the Father; but not as the former are two men are these two Gods. Why is it not so here? Because that belongs to one sphere and this to another; for this is divine. There is here something ineffable which cannot be explained in words, that there should both be, and not be, number. For see if there appear not a kind of number, Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost—the Trinity. If three, three what? Here number fails. And so God neither keeps apart from number, nor is comprehended by number. Because there are three, there is a kind of number. If you ask three what, number ceases. Hence it is said, “Great is our Lord, and great His power; and of His understanding there is no number.” When you have begun to reflect, you begin to number; when you have numbered, you cannot tell what you have numbered. The Father is Father, the Son is Son, the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. What are these three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Are They not three Gods? No. Are They not three Almighties? No. Not three Creators of the world? No. Is the Father then almighty? Manifestly almighty. And is the Son then not almighty? Clearly the Son is also almighty. And is the Holy Spirit then not almighty? He, too, is almighty. Are there then three Almighties? No; only one Almighty. Only in Their relation to each other do They suggest number, not in Their essential existence. For though God the Father is, as respects Himself, God along with the Son and the Holy Spirit, there are not three Gods; and, though as respects Himself He is omnipotent, as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit, there are not three omnipotents; for in truth He is the Father not in respect to Himself, but to the Son; nor is the Son so in respect to Himself, but to the Father; nor is the Spirit so as regards Himself, in as far as He is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. I have no name to give the three, save the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God, one Almighty. And so one beginning.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/1701039.htm

This goes into more depth
newadvent.org/fathers/160390.htm

Son of God article in CE
newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
 
BibleSteve said:
Yep, I think this is going to become my 2 question test to decide if somone has the ability to grasp the truth. This will save a lot of time…
  1. If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:
A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.
  1. If God has a son named Jesus, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Jesus :
A) “God’s Son”
B) 'The Son of God".
C) “God The Son”
D) All of the Above.
Click to expand...
  1. A & B
  2. A & B
how did I do? 😃

can i play judge? can i play judge? 🙂
 
Mannyfit75 said:
I shall begin by quoting some information about the Trinity which has its bases on Scripture and Early Church Councils. I do believe the doctrine of the Trinity is what defines us as Christians.

References to the Trinity
A few verses directly reference the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

Matthew 3:16–17: "As soon as Jesus Christ was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’ " (also Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32)

Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (see Trinitarian formula).

2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.”

1 John 5:7–8: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (This is the controversial Comma Johanneum, which did not appear in Greek texts before the sixteenth century.)

Luke 1:35: "The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’ "

Hebrews 9:14: “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!”

((continue))
Click to expand...
This thread seems to have turned into a dispute between Catholic and JW theologies. I don’t want to get involved in that. The point I wanted to make is that the scriptural passages you have quoted merely confirm that there are in the Bible reference to such beings identified as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Well, I don’t think that anyone disputes that. The question is, Do these scriptural verses support the 4th century definition of the Trinity that was later imposed on the church by the councils? I don’t see that they do. If you think that they do, show me how?

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
This thread seems to have turned into a dispute between Catholic and JW theologies. I don’t want to get involved in that. The point I wanted to make is that the scriptural passages you have quoted merely confirm that there are in the Bible reference to such beings identified as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Well, I don’t think that anyone disputes that. The question is, Do these scriptural verses support the 4th century definition of the Trinity that was later imposed on the church by the councils? I don’t see that they do. If you think that they do, show me how?

zerinus
Click to expand...
Actually, youve joined the argument against Bible Steve, by declaring that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Divine Persons.
 
BibleSteve said:
Dear Manny,

Instead of spending your time doing a big dump of all the reasons you think the Trinity is correct, why not spend some time and understand the Scriptural point of view of those who understand the Bible to be teaching something different?

watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm

Isn’t it better to understand both sides of a discussion before trying to prove you’re right?
Click to expand...
There’s more than one side; Moslems deny the Trinity too. He’d not be required to study all their points of view to have a point of view of his own.

I say this because in the OP Mannyfit75 does not target JWs - so why you assume he’d have to study up on their particular point of view is something known only to you.

Are you a JW?
 
BibleSteve said:
Yep, I think this is going to become my 2 question test to decide if somone has the ability to grasp the truth. This will save a lot of time…
  1. If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:
A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.
  1. If God has a son named Jesus, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Jesus :
A) “God’s Son”
B) 'The Son of God".
C) “God The Son”
D) All of the Above.
Click to expand...
God’s not Danny

That we live with paradoxes is not new.

God is, ultimately unknowable, but still known - through the Son.

So he is both known and unknowable at the same time.
 
MH84 said:
Actually, youve joined the argument against Bible Steve, by declaring that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Divine Persons.
Click to expand...
I don’t dispute that the Father, Son, And Holy Ghost are divine persons. But I do question the Trinitarian formulations of the church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries.

zerinus
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
My point is,
The thing that is most distribing is the fact that the NWT is concept by concept Greber’s NT and he was a spiritualist who translated his NT with help of demons.

👍
Click to expand...
Danny, you’re not telling me anything I don’t know about how the JW’s operate and think. However, forum rules dictate that we do not copy and paste page after page of material into threads. So there’s that to consider.

Another thing to consider is - What is the point? Do you think your plethora of pages of reference material is going to sway Steve or any other fully ingrained JW, from his point of view? I don’t. I don’t think anything anyone does will sway anyone else for or to anything. Conversion is God’s job, not ours. There comes a time when we have to realize futility. I personally think this is Jesus’ point in, “Do not cast your pearls before swine.” As much as that verse is used to abuse others; it’s in the bible for a reason. That reason is not to point out who we think are swine’s, it’s there as an admonition to the holders of the pearls.

I completely understand your frustration with people that refuse to see something that is so plain, and something that has been so eloquently explained with full Scriptural backing. But we have to let all that go, because in the end it doesn’t matter. I do not think when our times comes to meet Jesus face to face He will ask us how well we argued the theological construct of the hypostatic union. I seriously doubt that will even come up.
 
zerinus said:
I don’t dispute that the Father, Son, And Holy Ghost are divine persons. But I do question the Trinitarian formulations of the church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries.

zerinus
Click to expand...
I know, but BibleSteve does not, as you probably know
 
frustration ???

No frustration on my part. Bible Steve is NOT the only reader of this thread. I honestly doubt we will reach him because the god of this world has blinded him (2 cor 4:4 ). The material was posted more for those young in the christian faith to see that there is both biblical and historical evidence for the trinity.

In fact, I gave Steve a challenge to find his teachings in the church fathers from 90 AD to 300 AD, his unique mixture of theology did not exist until the JW’s came into existence in the 1800’s in the form of “international bible students” or something like that.

Steve, make a complete list of your theology be very specific and complete. Then read the church fathers from 90 AD to 300 AD to see if you can find your unique brand of chrisitanity there. Basically, Steve you can not restore what was never there in the first place.

Note: The challenge thread was most likely deleted because I posted personal contact information there. My bad.
 
At this point, I am asking my Catholic Brothern to carry on with this thread. My shoulder from my recent surgey is driving me nuts with pain.

As for our Muslim friends who have joined in, have you looked at the answering islam site to see how we define trinity, son of god, etc?

answering-islam.org/
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
At this point, I am asking my Catholic Brothern to carry on with this thread. My shoulder from my recent surgey is driving me nuts with pain.

As for our Muslim friends who have joined in, have you looked at the answering islam site to see how we define trinity, son of god, etc?

answering-islam.org/
Click to expand...
Hope your shoulder is back to tippy top very soon.

Peace.
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
frustration ???

No frustration on my part. Bible Steve is NOT the only reader of this thread. I honestly doubt we will reach him because the god of this world has blinded him (2 cor 4:4 ). The material was posted more for those young in the christian faith to see that there is both biblical and historical evidence for the trinity.
Click to expand...
I dont get why you think that the “god of this world has blinded him”. Because this guy honstly believes he is following the Bible. I think that your arguments in the previous posts are valid and I hope that they get through to him. However, I don’t think he is under the influence of satan or something like that, it is just that his theological beliefs are different.

Technically speaking, as a Catholic I could say that since you are not Catholic yourself, you could be blind tho the truth.
 
MH84 said:
I dont get why you think that the “god of this world has blinded him”. Because this guy honstly believes he is following the Bible. I think that your arguments in the previous posts are valid and I hope that they get through to him. However, I don’t think he is under the influence of satan or something like that, it is just that his theological beliefs are different.
Click to expand...
MH84,

Thank you for your insightful comment.

Right or wrong, I hold the Bible as the standard to which I measure everyone else’s opinion and interpretation against. I spend plenty of time reading the analysis of commentators of various religions to ensure I understand their opinion and more importantly, WHY they believe as they do.

Because of my University training in Math, Physics, Science, and Chemistry, along with my heart-pounding, breath-taking admiration of YHWH’s mathmatically based design as found in all of Creation, I do not go along with being told I should believe something that violates rudimentary logic, and is thus by definition “illogical”. I suspect that is exactly why Isaac Newton also rejected the Trinity.

I have carefully gone over each scripture used to “prove” the Trinity for over 25 years and find that people are inadvertantly jumping to illogical and biased conclusions, or they are completely ignoring the fact that certain verses are ambiguous and provide difficulty to a translator.
 
MH84 said:
I know, but BibleSteve does not, as you probably know
Click to expand...
OK, but my intention was to debate with the OP, not with BibleSteve. However, if you are really keen to defeat a JW, I will show you an easy way. A central plank of JW theology is that Jesus and Jehovah are two different people. If it can be shown from scripture that they are one and the same, that has a devastating effect on their theology. It destroys it completely. Well, that is an easy thing to do. There are many biblical passages that affirm this. Here are some:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple . . . (John 8:58–59).

“I AM” is a direct reference to “Jehovah” of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14).

And [the Israelites who came out of Egypt] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4).

In the Old Testament, that “Rock” was called Jehovah; but here St. Paul informs us that it was in fact Christ.

In the following verses “Lord” is a direct translation of the Hebrew “Jehovah”:

For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . . (Isaiah 43:3).

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto me, cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I [Jehovah] was priced at of them . . . (Zechariah 11:12–13).

The reference to Jesus is obvious (See Matthew 27:3–9).

In that day shall the Lord [Jehovah] defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I [Lord, Jehovah] will seek to destroy all nations that shall come against Jerusalem. And I [Lord, Jehovah] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me [Jehovah] whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him . . . (Zechariah 12:8–10).

These are clear references to Jesus in His second coming.

Then shall the Lord [Jehovah] go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his [Lord, Jehovah’s] feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in twain in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west . . . (Zechariah 14:3–4).

And the Lord [Jehovah] shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall be one Lord, and his name one (Zechariah 14: 9–10).

These are all references to Jesus’ second coming. Here is probably the most conclusive proof yet:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE Lord [JEHOVAH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jeremiah 23:5–6).

Note in particular that in this verse it says that this new king, who will be called THE Lord [JEHOVAH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, is to be born in David’s line. Thus the reference to the Saviour Jesus Christ is irrefutable; and yet He will be called JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS! No greater argument can be made than that. I believe there is a good reference in the Revelation too; but I can’t think off hand what it is.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
However, if you are really keen to defeat a JW, I will show you an easy way.
Click to expand...
Before you spend any more time thumping your chest thinking your going to “defeat a JW” or “devastate their theology”, spend some time reviewing how they view these scriptures and how they understand them.

It’s far more useful to understand both sides of a discussion before declaring yourself the “winner” to everyone.

Can you explain JW’s point of view on these Scriptures yet? If not, why pat yourself on the back?

This reminds me of an amatuer chess player who thinks he has the magic move that will devastate his opponent, but hasn’t given any thought to what move the other person will respond with.

Study both sides of a Scriptural interpretation. Be able to articulate argue both sides of the interpretation. Then, decide for yourself what to believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top