Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses

[Apple7]

Then how does it make sense to praise the One God three times using the divine name? If there is only one YHWH then why proclaim it as if there are three YHWH's, unless your stating they're praising each person of the trinity -who each aren't YHWH but all together YHWH- individually by the divine name which, again, makes no sense, as there is only ONE YHWH. They, according to you, don't each posses the name YHWH but all share the name unitedly.

My fault in thinking has nothing to do with myself, but rather your poor excuse of a explanation. The text makes perfect sense when you simply understand it as three praises for emphasis!

Apple7, is it possible the text simply praises Jah three times for emphasis?

'Emphasis' is added by repeating a word or phrase twice, such as Jesus repeatedly did by saying 'truly, truly I say to you...'

Repeating three times directs the readers attention to another area.

The Trinitarian formula, that Jesus mentioned, actually started way back in the OT...

Mat 28.19

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

This passage contains arthrous substantives connected via kai which indicates distinction and separate referents.

However, while distinction is made between the referents, each has the same singular name.

Three Persons in one Being.

This same singular name of three persons’ baptism is the same as the Aaronic blessing in which the singular name of Yahweh is repeated three times (Num 6.22 – 27).

Separate and yet the same, The Trinity.

 

[Apple7]

Yes, and as we've talked about before many times you must use scripture to interpret scripture.

Correction.

You MUST use the original languages to interpret scripture.

Something that you like to lip-sync...

Jesus is subordinate to the father in creation.

Nope.

Scripture can speak of things being created by, through and for Jesus. Other verses like the below shed further light on the subject and shows clearly that the Father is the real active cause in creation, creating things through Jesus. (Heb 1:1-3,1 Cor 8:6)

Fact is.....there are verses which state that The Father Creates...that The Son Creates....and that The Spirit Creates.

As a witness, you cherry-pick the scripture which best fits your jaded worldview.

Yes yes I'm aware you reject the father being the Theos in Hebrews 1:1 because you know what implications it will bring.

That would be your assertion, not mine.

But....look what you missed by adamantly refusing to look to the original languages...

Heb 1.1

πολυμερως και πολυτροπως παλαι ο θεος λαλησας τοις πατρασιν εν τοις προφηταις επ εσχατου των ημερων τουτων ελαλησεν ημιν εν υιω

POLYMERŌS kai POLYTROPŌS palai ho theos lalēsas tois patrasin en tois prophētais

By many portions and in various forms, God spoke to the fathers in the prophets;


The Book of Hebrews is aptly named for the OT material of which it contains.

Heb 1.1 immediately informs the reader that the One God of the OT has always revealed Himself ‘by many portions’ (polymeros) and ‘in various forms’ (polytropos).

These two Greek terms are only used this one time/ea in the entirety of the Holy Bible, and lexically are defined as ‘One of the constituent parts of a whole; in a context where the whole and its parts are distinguished.’

A clear signal of the ONE Triune Creator God of the Universe.

 

[Apple7]

Furthermore what does this have to do with what you quoted of me?

Was my rhetorical question/statement not an accurate portrayal of scripture? Does Jesus not do all things for the father? If you agree with me then why all the above writing on your part?

(John 5:30) "...By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me..."

(1 Cor 15:28) "...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also subject himself unto him that put all things under him..."

(Matt 26:39) "...Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will..."

Look at your examples....all are truncations showing one side of the God-man.

Fact is, each Person proclaims each other.

 

[Apple7]

No, just no. Your simple explanation that Jesus is always the one being spoken of when glory or truth is mentioned makes no sense. Scripture shows clear examples of glory being spoken of which cannot literally be talking about the person of Jesus. When I confronted you with these passages you never gave an explanation other than "Jesus is the subject", which did not explain how it were possible for Jesus himself to receive glory if he was glory along with numerous other contradictions.

I've still yet to find a single scholar or person even who shares the same ridiculous belief of you regarding that verse or the usage of the words glory or truth. Until you give some type of classification as to why glory always means Jesus, and truth always mean Jesus, apart from one of the usages of the Greek equivalent, then your point is dismissed as it holds no weight.

Then hand-pick one scriptural example that you feel does not fit, and exegete it for us...

BTW...That is a year-old offer...

And so what if The Glory has the appearance of a Man? A few post ago you made reference to the spirit being a hand, does that mean the spirit is in a form of a hand? Poor skills.

If The Glory is a man, then that inherently translates to The God-man....and people would have to deal with it.

As we can see, the Jews run from it.

Witnesses also run from it.

What is this meant to disprove?

Where in the scripture does it state God has become worthy? I was fully aware of this verse before I made my statements.

Jesus is given the same epithets in Rev 5:12 as the person in Rev 4:9, so?

As a Unitarian, your whole life's mission is to deny Jesus' deity.

You attempt to do this by making it appear that Jesus was a lesser entity and not actually God, Himself (besides your perverted version of The Trinity hang-up of thinking that He is The Father)....and that He must somehow be reliant upon receiving anything that comes His way.

Rev 4 completely blows apart your lame assertion, as you cannot deny that it pertains to Theos being 'worthy' and on the receiving end of things...

Boom.

 

[Apple7]

Maybe you can't remember, you were the one who stated "Rev 5:12 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us" , I'm the one that spoke to the contrary.

The trinity is that GOD=Father/Son/HS, each person is separate, co-equal, co-eternal. So looking at your statement that Rev 5:12 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us, I failed to see how this single scripture shows that GOD=Father/Son/HS, and that each person is separate, co-equal, co-eternal and yet one in nature. All I can see is Jesus being called the sames thing as Theos is called, which comes to no surprise since Jesus is a charaktēr of the one God. (Hebrews 1:3)

My problem wasn't regarding what you were trying to express but rather a highly false statement that Rev 5:12 proves the trinity, as if you don't understand how big a statement that is, which why its so laughable.

The doxology proves The Trinity for the simple fact that singular praise is provided to The Son and Theos.

As you already admitted, Theos refers to The Father.

As you already admitted, Theos refers to The Spirit.

5.13 informs the reader that The Son is also part of this doxology.

So now, you have Theos referring to The Son.

Simple Biblical Truth...

 

[Apple7]

I actually want you to ponder over those type of statements you make Bowman, which you make all the time. Imagine if I addressed you with a single scripture and stated this verse proves that there is one God who is the father, and that Jesus is created person and isn't part of a trinity and the holy spirit isn't a person but a force which God uses. Then when you read the verse you quickly realized it didn't even address a single one of the points which were mentioned, how stupid would you think that person was? Now you know how I feel.

The difference is that I can exegetically defend my position with the original languages.

You cannot.

Simple.


:cigar::cigar::cigar:

 

[NWL]

Is Jesus the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως? If so then give me and example where someone/something is prōtotokos (prōtotokos or equivalent variation) of something and not part of that group.

[Rev 22:1,2] και εδειξεν μοι ποταμον υδατος ζωης λαμπρον ως κρυσταλλον εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου εν μεσω της πλατειας αυτης και του ποταμου εντευθεν και εκειθεν ξυλον ζωης ποιουν καρπους δωδεκα κατα μηνα εκαστον αποδιδουν τον καρπον αυτου και τα φυλλα του ξυλου εις θεραπειαν των εθνων και παν καταθεμα ουκ εσται ετι και ο θρονος του θεου και του αρνιου εν αυτη εσται και οι δουλοι αυτου λατρευσουσιν αυτω και οψονται το προσωπον αυτου και το ονομα αυτου επι των μετωπων αυτων

"...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations..." (Rev 22:1,2)

How is this an example of when someone/something is prōtotokos pasēs a group of things which they're not part of?

Stop stalling, not that I expect anything more from you.

The very word that you are arguing over is entirely relevant.

This verse mandates that Jesus was never created and that He is the singular, nominative archē (i.e. the origin; the active cause), the singular genitive creation, and the singular genitive God.

I beg to differ, my argument isn't that the verse is stating that Jesus was the firstborn of creation, which it seems to say on face value, but rather, that since Jesus is firstborn of something,he is then by default part of that group which he is firstborn in.

In Col 1:18 it states "he [Jesus] is the beginning and the prōtotokos from among the dead". I'm sure you'd have no problem agreeing that since Jesus was labelled the "prōtotokos from among the dead" that one could conclude by that statement that Jesus surely died, otherwise, how could he be classed firstborn in that group, namely of the dead, if he wasn't himself in it. Likewise if Jesus is the firsborn of the group creation, he has to be in that group to be firstborn of it. If you disagree then show me an example in the bible where someone is firstborn of a group where they themselves aren't a part of that group they're firstborn over.

(Rev 5:12) In a loud voice they were saying: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

Could you show me in the above verse where it directly says anything about worship, my ignorant self can't seem to find the word worship in there.

λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν

This is your proof that Jesus was given worship here in Rev 5:12!? Because of the word ευλογιαν/blessing. :nono:

In Galations 3:14 ευλογιαν/blessing are to be given to Abraham, is that proof he is worshiped?

In Hebrews 6:7 the ground is spoken of as receiving blessing [eulogia] from God, is that proof the ground was worshiped by God?

The answer is going to of course be no. Blessings given to someone is no proof that they're worshiped, otherwise people would be committing blasphemy every time someone sneezed. My question has not be satisfactorily answered. Please expand.

 

[NWL]

I asked where the Holy Spirit is seen as sitting on Gods throne. Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but this in no way answers my question?

Where is He not, is a better question.

Revelation tells us that The Father sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21); that Jesus sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21; 7.17; 22.1 - 3), & that Theos sits upon the Throne (Rev 7:10 – 11; 7:15; 12:5; 14:5; 19:4; 22:1 - 3).

How is Theos sitting on the throne an example of the Holy Spirit sitting on the throne. Unless you have the name Holy Spirit to it then how can you say that Rev 7:10 – 11; 7:15; 12:5; 14:5; 19:4; 22:1 - 3 are reference to the holy Spirit? This is purely your assumption


(Rev 7:10-11) "...And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb..."

(Rev 7:15) "...Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence..."

(Rev 12:5) "...She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne..."

(Rev 14:5) "...The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: "Amen, Hallelujah!"..."

(Rev 22:1-3) "...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him..."

Here are the verse you gave, show us where in them it refers to the unidentified Theos as the Holy Spirit, otherwise admit its an assumption.

After all this time your still using the same washed out reasoning. I know you yourself don't actually believe the above verses show what your trying to state to me, since when I asked for you to sow me an example of the HS being called YHWH you tried to show me three verse in Ezekiel -which didn't even show it- instead of producing the above Revelation 14:5, which still doesn't show it. If you actually believed that this verse shows the HS on the throne then why not use produce it when I asked, unless you actually know it isn't in reference to the HS.

Where exactly does it call the Holy spirit YHWH here? I understand you linking the "spirit of YHWH" and the "Hand of of YHWH" together, but where does it call the name or spirit here, YHWH? A poor example at best as far as I can see, please expand.

Bringing it all together for you...

We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)


We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)

We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

Apple7, I'm asking the most simplest of tasks. Give me an example where the Holy Spirit is referred to as YHWH. As far as I can see none of these verses show it. Either give and example or admit there is not such verse.

 

[NWL]

Jesus is the Word of God, with that God being the father. Thus it can be said that Jesus was the Word of the Father, as spokesman for him.

(John 12:49) "...For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken..."

That being said, Jesus according to your own reasoning is the Father .

That would be your reasoning....and no wonder you are so confused.

This should clarify things for you...

And Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The Words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe Me because of the works themselves. Indeed, I tell you truly, the one believing into Me, the works which I do, that one shall do also, and greater than these he will do, because I go to My Father. (John 14.8 – 12)


Clearly, context comes to the rescue of the ignorant, as it declares that ‘abiding’ (menōn) has absolutely nothing to do with two persons being the same. The six other NT locations for ‘menōn’ plainly demonstrate that it was intended to be rendered as influence.

Further, if The Father and The Son were already each other, then there would be no need to ‘go to’ The Father…

Simple Biblical truth.

You could have figured this one out for yourself had you even tried...

I'm well aware that you don't believe Jesus and the Father are the same person and I'm sure you're aware that I don't actually think that's what you believe. My point I was trying to make that by using your deduction that the HS is called YHWH because scripture makes reference to the Hand of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH that one could make the same deduction that Jesus, the Word of God/Father, is the Father himself.

I understand you don't believe this, as it would contradict the trinity, but I merely showed it so you so others could see how you reasoning was in fact poor reasoning.

Apple7, is it possible the text simply praises Jah three times for emphasis?

'Emphasis' is added by repeating a word or phrase twice, such as Jesus repeatedly did by saying 'truly, truly I say to you...'

Repeating three times directs the readers attention to another area.

The Trinitarian formula, that Jesus mentioned, actually started way back in the OT...

Mat 28.19

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

This passage contains arthrous substantives connected via kai which indicates distinction and separate referents.

However, while distinction is made between the referents, each has the same singular name.

Three Persons in one Being.

This same singular name of three persons’ baptism is the same as the Aaronic blessing in which the singular name of Yahweh is repeated three times (Num 6.22 – 27).

Separate and yet the same, The Trinity.

Really!? There is no rule as to how many times someone says a word for emphasis. The fact that the word is used three times and you claim it is in reference to a trinity is an assumption, there is nothing in scripture which states this.

The fact remains, YHWH is one, not three. Thus it makes no sense to praise Jah three times, unless you want to say they praised the individuals the Father, Son and HS as Jah, three times, which would go against the trinity as there is one JAH.

Now I know you side stepped the question, so could you answer it plainly now. Remember, I'm not asking that you agree with me, I'm asking you is it possible, is there a chance that the words are said three times simply for emphasis? Yes or no.

 

[NWL]

But....look what you missed by adamantly refusing to look to the original languages...

Heb 1.1

πολυμερως και πολυτροπως παλαι ο θεος λαλησας τοις πατρασιν εν τοις προφηταις επ εσχατου των ημερων τουτων ελαλησεν ημιν εν υιω

POLYMERŌS kai POLYTROPŌS palai ho theos lalēsas tois patrasin en tois prophētais

By many portions and in various forms, God spoke to the fathers in the prophets;


The Book of Hebrews is aptly named for the OT material of which it contains.

Heb 1.1 immediately informs the reader that the One God of the OT has always revealed Himself ‘by many portions’ (polymeros) and ‘in various forms’ (polytropos).

These two Greek terms are only used this one time/ea in the entirety of the Holy Bible, and lexically are defined as ‘One of the constituent parts of a whole; in a context where the whole and its parts are distinguished.’

A clear signal of the ONE Triune Creator God of the Universe

Can that One God , who you suggest is the Father/Son/HS, have a Son? Hebrews 1:1-2 states regarding the unidentified God that ethēken [he], appointed the Son. Did Jesus appoint himself, did the Holy Spirit appoint Jesus, or did the Father appoint Jesus? Did the Father/Son/HS create the world through the Son, implying the Son created the world through the Son? Is Jesus the charaktēr/copy/image of the trinity, namely Father/Son/HS or is Jesus a charaktēr of the person who he states is his father (John 14:9)? We all know the answer to the questions, we all understand the contradictory nature when we view the God of Hebrews 1:1-3 as a trinity, its simply you who refuses to admit defeat regarding it.

There is no problem of understanding the opening texts of Hebrews 1:1 as God speaking through representatives in the OT, you simply don't like the idea.

Then hand-pick one scriptural example that you feel does not fit, and exegete it for us...

BTW...That is a year-old offer...

As I said, give me something more than "Jesus is the subject" and I will. You've said regarding one of the greek variations of the words glory and/or truth that sometimes they aren't regarding to Jesus, why is this? Whats different regarding on usage of the word to another? How is it possible that people receive glory, the Father has glory, how comes glory and truth means Jesus but when you switch the words passages seemingly make no sense.

When you expand on your reasons, other than "Jesus is always the subject", so that I understand you position fully then I can answer you.

If The Glory is a man, then that inherently translates to The God-man....and people would have to deal with it.

As we can see, the Jews run from it.

Witnesses also run from it.

Yet when you use this reasoning on the bible in its entirety it becomes a laughing stock, in the same manner, is God the;

Cloud-God
Dove-God
Fire-God
Hand-God
Stone-God

The phrase God-man is ridiculous and has no basis in scripture.

As a Unitarian, your whole life's mission is to deny Jesus' deity.

You attempt to do this by making it appear that Jesus was a lesser entity and not actually God, Himself (besides your perverted version of The Trinity hang-up of thinking that He is The Father)....and that He must somehow be reliant upon receiving anything that comes His way.

Rev 4 completely blows apart your lame assertion, as you cannot deny that it pertains to Theos being 'worthy' and on the receiving end of things...

Boom.

He is reliant, he himself stated it regarding life "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father" (John 6:57)

Rev 4 in no way blows anything apart my friend. Jesus was the one who restored true worship for the Father, if it wasn't for him God wouldn't be receiving any true worship, that tagged along with the fact that Jesus is a copy/charaktēr of the Father makes complete sense for Jesus to receive those things, especially when he passes all worship through himself to the Father.

 

[NWL]

The doxology proves The Trinity for the simple fact that singular praise is provided to The Son and Theos.

As you already admitted, Theos refers to The Father.

As you already admitted, Theos refers to The Spirit.

5.13 informs the reader that The Son is also part of this doxology.

So now, you have Theos referring to The Son.

Simple Biblical Truth...

So Rev 5:12 proves that God= the Father/Son/Spirit, that all are co-equal, co eternal but yet one in essence, nature, purpose etc? Can you confirm that Rev 5:12 proves all the things I just listed.

We both know I didn't admit anything, please don't lie. If I speak regarding the trinity as if its true, its always for arguments sake, we both know this.

 

[Apple7]

"...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations..." (Rev 22:1,2)

How is this an example of when someone/something is prōtotokos pasēs a group of things which they're not part of?

Stop stalling, not that I expect anything more from you.

Learn to show context...

και εδειξεν μοι ποταμον υδατος ζωης λαμπρον ως κρυσταλλον εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου εν μεσω της πλατειας αυτης και του ποταμου εντευθεν και εκειθεν ξυλον ζωης ποιουν καρπους δωδεκα κατα μηνα εκαστον αποδιδουν τον καρπον αυτου και τα φυλλα του ξυλου εις θεραπειαν των εθνων και παν καταθεμα ουκ εσται ετι και ο θρονος του θεου και του αρνιου εν αυτη εσται και οι δουλοι αυτου λατρευσουσιν αυτω και οψονται το προσωπον αυτου και το ονομα αυτου επι των μετωπων αυτων

kai edeixen moi potamon udatos zōēs lampron ōs krustallon ekporeuomenon tou thronou tou theou kai tou arniou en mesō tēs plateias autēs kai tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen xulon zōēs poioun karpous dōdeka kata mēna ekaston apodidoun ton karpon autou kai ta phulla tou xulou eis therapeian tōn ethnōn kai pan katathema ouk estai eti kai o thronos tou theou kai tou arniou en autē estai kai oi douloi autou latreusousin autō kai opsontai to prosōpon autou kai to onoma autou epi tōn metōpōn autōn

And he showed me a river of water of life, clear/white as crystal, coming forth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of its street and of the river, from here and from there, was a Tree of life producing twelve fruits: according to one month each yielding its fruit. And the leaves of the tree were for healing of the nations. And every curse will no longer be. And the throne of God and the Lamb will be in it; and His slaves will worship Him. And they will see His face; and His name will be on their foreheads. (Rev 22.1 – 4)


Observe that Revelation chapter 22 declares that both the Water of Life and the Tree of Life are intertwined with one another, and emanate from the singular throne of God and the Lamb.


Although both God and the Lamb are identified, they are treated as one entity, one God, via the prolific usage of singular personal pronouns and singular nouns:

• One Throne (thronos)
• His (autou) slaves
• His (autou) face (prosōpon)
• His (autou) name (onoma)

Boom.

:cigar:

 

[Apple7]

I beg to differ, my argument isn't that the verse is stating that Jesus was the firstborn of creation, which it seems to say on face value, but rather, that since Jesus is firstborn of something,he is then by default part of that group which he is firstborn in.

Your argument stems from ignorance, because you refuse to review the lexical definitions of the very term(s) which you are arguing.

You claim to use the original languages whenever possible - but then you fall into the trap of accepting English renderings which seem to fit your worldview, but really do not when you look to the original languages.

ο θεος αβρααμ και ισαακ και ιακωβ ο θεος των πατερων ημων εδοξασεν τον παιδα αυτου ιησουν ον υμεις μεν παρεδωκατε και ηρνησασθε κατα προσωπον πιλατου κριναντος εκεινου απολυειν υμεις δε τον αγιον και δικαιον ηρνησασθε και ητησασθε ανδρα φονεα χαρισθηναι υμιν τον δε αρχηγον της ζωης απεκτεινατε ον ο θεος ηγειρεν εκ νεκρων ου ημεις μαρτυρες εσμεν

ho theos abraam kai isaak kai iakōb ho theos tōn paterōn ēmōn edoxasen ton paida autou iēsoun on umeis men paredōkate kai ērnēsasthe kata prosōpon pilatou krinantos ekeinou apoluein umeis de ton agion kai dikaion ērnēsasthe kai ētēsasthe andra phonea charisthēnai umin ton de archēgon tēs zōēs apekteinate on ho theos ēgeiren ek nekrōn ou ēmeis martures esmen

The "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob," "the God of our fathers," glorified the Son of Him, Jesus, whom you delivered up, and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, that one having decided to set Him free. But you denied the Holy and Just One, and asked for a man, a murderer, to be granted to you. And the Originator of Life you killed, whom God raised up from the dead, of which we are witnesses. (Acts 3.13 -15)


Here we have Peter declaring to the Jews that they rejected and killed the ‘Originator of Life’ (de archēgon tēs zōēs), Jesus.

Please tell us exactly how verses such as this one fit with your paradigm that the 'Father was the creator of all'?!

 

[Apple7]

In Col 1:18 it states "he [Jesus] is the beginning and the prōtotokos from among the dead". I'm sure you'd have no problem agreeing that since Jesus was labelled the "prōtotokos from among the dead" that one could conclude by that statement that Jesus surely died, otherwise, how could he be classed firstborn in that group, namely of the dead, if he wasn't himself in it. Likewise if Jesus is the firsborn of the group creation, he has to be in that group to be firstborn of it. If you disagree then show me an example in the bible where someone is firstborn of a group where they themselves aren't a part of that group they're firstborn over.

Col 1.18 uses the term archē (originator) and the term prōtotokos (first Resurrected).

The first term is used in reference to Jesus being The Creator' and the second term is used in reference to His singular Resurrection.

This is your proof that Jesus was given worship here in Rev 5:12!? Because of the word ευλογιαν/blessing. :nono:

In Galations 3:14 ευλογιαν/blessing are to be given to Abraham, is that proof he is worshiped?

In Hebrews 6:7 the ground is spoken of as receiving blessing [eulogia] from God, is that proof the ground was worshiped by God?

The answer is going to of course be no. Blessings given to someone is no proof that they're worshiped, otherwise people would be committing blasphemy every time someone sneezed. My question has not be satisfactorily answered. Please expand.

The inflection used in the doxology of Rev 5.12 pertains only to deity.

 

[Apple7]

How is Theos sitting on the throne an example of the Holy Spirit sitting on the throne. Unless you have the name Holy Spirit to it then how can you say that Rev 7:10 – 11; 7:15; 12:5; 14:5; 19:4; 22:1 - 3 are reference to the holy Spirit? This is purely your assumption


(Rev 7:10-11) "...And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb..."

(Rev 7:15) "...Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence..."

(Rev 12:5) "...She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne..."

(Rev 14:5) "...The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: "Amen, Hallelujah!"..."

(Rev 22:1-3) "...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him..."

Here are the verse you gave, show us where in them it refers to the unidentified Theos as the Holy Spirit, otherwise admit its an assumption.

By the same token, where is The Father mentioned?!

You are still stuck on thinking that whenever Theos is mentioned that it must refer to The Father.

Fail.

After all this time your still using the same washed out reasoning. I know you yourself don't actually believe the above verses show what your trying to state to me, since when I asked for you to sow me an example of the HS being called YHWH you tried to show me three verse in Ezekiel -which didn't even show it- instead of producing the above Revelation 14:5, which still doesn't show it. If you actually believed that this verse shows the HS on the throne then why not use produce it when I asked, unless you actually know it isn't in reference to the HS.

Even in the OT, we have various epithets for The Trinity, as thus...

God The Father was known as:

• Yahweh
• Elohim ‘God’
• El Elyon ‘God Most High’ (Gen 14.18, 19, 20, 22)
• El Olam ‘God Eternal’ (Gen 21.33
• Adonai Yahweh ‘Lord Yahweh’ (Gen 15.2, 8)


God The Son was known as:

• El Shaddai ‘God of Mighty Ones’ (Gen 17.1, 28.3, 35.11, 43.14, 48.3, 49.25; Exo 6.3)
• Elohim ‘God’ (Gen 16.13, 22.12, 31.13; Exo 3.6)
• The Malek Elohim ‘The Messenger of God’ (Gen 21.17; 31.11)
• The Malek Yahweh ‘ The Messenger of Yahweh’ (Gen 16.7, 9 - 11; 22.11, 15)
• Debar Yahweh ‘The Word of Yahweh’ (Gen 15.1, 4; Exo 9.20, 21)


God The Spirit was known as:

• The Ruach of Elohim ‘Spirit of God’ (Gen 1.2)
• The Ruach of Yahweh ‘Spirit of Yahweh’ (Gen 6.3)

 

[Apple7]

I'm well aware that you don't believe Jesus and the Father are the same person and I'm sure you're aware that I don't actually think that's what you believe. My point I was trying to make that by using your deduction that the HS is called YHWH because scripture makes reference to the Hand of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH that one could make the same deduction that Jesus, the Word of God/Father, is the Father himself.

I understand you don't believe this, as it would contradict the trinity, but I merely showed it so you so others could see how you reasoning was in fact poor reasoning.

No verse contradicts the Trinity....as the Trinity already comprehends the sum total of ALL Biblical scripture.

Really!? There is no rule as to how many times someone says a word for emphasis. The fact that the word is used three times and you claim it is in reference to a trinity is an assumption, there is nothing in scripture which states this.

Show us scriptural examples to the contrary, then...

The fact remains, YHWH is one, not three.

The Trinity is one Yahweh, not three.

3 Persons; 1 Being.

What part of this escapes your intellect...?

Thus it makes no sense to praise Jah three times, unless you want to say they praised the individuals the Father, Son and HS as Jah, three times, which would go against the trinity as there is one JAH.

Each Person receives praise.

Simple.

Now I know you side stepped the question, so could you answer it plainly now. Remember, I'm not asking that you agree with me, I'm asking you is it possible, is there a chance that the words are said three times simply for emphasis? Yes or no.

No.

 

[Apple7]

Can that One God , who you suggest is the Father/Son/HS, have a Son?

Why not?

Hebrews 1:1-2 states regarding the unidentified God that ethēken [he], appointed the Son. Did Jesus appoint himself, did the Holy Spirit appoint Jesus, or did the Father appoint Jesus?

Heb 1.1 informs the reader that God is Triune.

Heb 1.2 informs the reader that God was made flesh, and this is His preferred mode of communication going forward - same as other Biblical passages.

Did the Father/Son/HS create the world through the Son, implying the Son created the world through the Son?

Each Person of the Trinity created the Universe, according to scripture.

Is Jesus the charaktēr/copy/image of the trinity, namely Father/Son/HS or is Jesus a charaktēr of the person who he states is his father (John 14:9)? We all know the answer to the questions, we all understand the contradictory nature when we view the God of Hebrews 1:1-3 as a trinity, its simply you who refuses to admit defeat regarding it.

Why don't you exegete the Greek word 'image' for us and explain why it is only used one time in the entire NT.

There is no problem of understanding the opening texts of Hebrews 1:1 as God speaking through representatives in the OT, you simply don't like the idea.

Show us your exegesis, then.

No one wants more of your unreferenced opinion...

 

[Apple7]

Rev 4 in no way blows anything apart my friend. Jesus was the one who restored true worship for the Father, if it wasn't for him God wouldn't be receiving any true worship, that tagged along with the fact that Jesus is a copy/charaktēr of the Father makes complete sense for Jesus to receive those things, especially when he passes all worship through himself to the Father.

You're running from the Greek of rev 4, yet again.

Since you think that Rev 4 pertains to God The Father....what did God The Father have to do to become WORTHY to RECEIVE something?

You're stuck.

:cigar::cigar::cigar:

 

[Apple7]

As I said, give me something more than "Jesus is the subject" and I will. You've said regarding one of the greek variations of the words glory and/or truth that sometimes they aren't regarding to Jesus, why is this? Whats different regarding on usage of the word to another? How is it possible that people receive glory, the Father has glory, how comes glory and truth means Jesus but when you switch the words passages seemingly make no sense.

When you expand on your reasons, other than "Jesus is always the subject", so that I understand you position fully then I can answer you.

Let's deal with 'The Truth' first, and see its importance, as thus...


The NT, just like the OT, is clear that we need to worship God as He has revealed Himself – which is Triune.

Paul clearly distanced himself from his unbelieving Jewish brethren by his following belief declaration:


But I confess this to you that according to the Way, which they say is a sect, so I worship the ancestral God believing all things according to that having been written in the Law and the Prophets, having hope toward God, which these themselves also admit, of a resurrection being about to be of the dead, both of just and unjust ones. (Acts 24.14)

Clearly, Paul builds upon the previous Hebrew prophets and is now able to worship God properly ‘according to The Way’ and according to that which had previously been written in the Torah and the prophets.

Obviously, Paul is able to see what his Jewish brethren have missed. Jews have been in denial of proper worship of God – and ‘The Way’ has laid the foundation for proper worship to God.

Proper worship of God:

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeks such, the ones worshiping Him. God is spirit, and the ones worshiping Him must worship in spirit and truth.(John 4.23 - 24)


This proper worship is as a Triune entity:

• Father
• Son (Truth)
• Spirit



We can easily see that proper worship of God, is Triune, and that we must do so in 'Truth'.

The reference scripture, once again...



John 4.23 - 24

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and Truth (alētheia). For the Father also seeks such, the ones worshiping Him. The God is Spirit, and the ones worshiping Him must worship in Spirit and Truth (alētheia).

You should pay attention to Jesus when He tells you that He is 'The Truth'...


John 14.6…Jesus

Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and The Truth (hē alētheia), and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


In fact, ALL the way through the NT, 'The Truth' ALWAYS refers to Jesus as the subject.


John 1.9 – 17…Jesus

He was The True (to alēthinon) Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God. And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of Truth (alētheias). John witnesses concerning Him, and has cried out, saying, This One was He of whom I said, He coming after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all received, and grace on top of grace. For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and The Truth (hē alētheia) came through Jesus Christ.



John 3.19 – 21…Jesus

And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness more than the Light, for their works were evil. For everyone practicing wickedness hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, that his works may not be exposed. But the one practicing The Truth (tēn alētheian) comes to the Light, that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God.



John 5.32 – 33…Jesus

It is Another that witnesses concerning Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses concerning Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has testified to The Truth (tē alētheia).



John 6.32 – 33…Jesus

Then Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Moses has not given you the bread out of Heaven, but My Father gives you The True (ton alēthinon) bread out of Heaven. For the bread of God is He coming down out of Heaven and giving life to the world.



John 8.31 – 46…Jesus

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in Him, If you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples. And you will know The Truth (tēn alētheian), and The Truth (hē alētheia) will set you free. They answered Him, We are Abraham's seed, and we have been in slavery to no one, never! How do You say, You will become free? Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Everyone practicing sin is a slave of sin. But the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains to the age. Therefore, if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed. I know that you are Abraham's seed, but you seek to kill Me, because My Word is not given room in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father. And you therefore do what you have seen with your father. They answered and said to Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a man who has spoken The Truth (tēn alētheian) to you, which I heard alongside of God. Abraham did not do this. You do the works of your father. They said to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one father, God. Then Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I went forth and have come from God. For I have not come from Myself, but that One sent Me. Why do you not know My speech? It is because you are not able to hear My Word. You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in The Truth (tē alētheia), because there is no Truth (alētheia) in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I speak The Truth (tēn alētheian), you do not believe Me. Who of you reproves Me concerning sin? But if I speak Truth (alētheian), why do you not believe Me?

John 14.16 – 18…Jesus

And I will petition the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may remain with you to the age, the Spirit of The Truth (tēs alētheias), whom the world cannot receive because it does not see Him nor know Him. But you know Him, for He abides with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I am coming to you.



John 15.26…Jesus

And when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of The Truth (tēs alētheias)who proceeds from the Father, that One will witness concerning Me.



John 16.7…Jesus

But I tell you The Truth (tēn alētheian), it is advantageous for you that I should go; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Him to you.



John 16.13 – 14…Jesus

But when that One comes, the Spirit, TheTruth (tēs alētheias), He will guide you into all The Truth (tē alētheia), for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will announce the coming things to you. That One will glorify Me, for He will receive from Mine and will announce to you.



John 17.3…Jesus

And this is everlasting life, that they may know You, the only True (alēthinon) God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.




John 17.17 – 19…Jesus

Sanctify them in The Truth (tē alētheia); Your Word is Truth (alētheia). As You have sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world, and I sanctify Myself for them, that they also may be sanctified in Truth (alētheia).


John 18.37 – 38…Jesus

Then Pilate said to Him, Are You really a king? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. For this purpose I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I might witness to The Truth (tē alētheia). Everyone being of The Truth (tēs alētheias) hears My voice. Pilate said to Him, What is Truth (alētheia)? And saying this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, I do not find even one crime in Him!




1 John 2.8…Jesus

gain I write a new commandment to you which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and The True (to alēthinon) Light already shines.



1 John 5.20…Jesus

And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an understanding that we may know The True (ton alēthinon) One, and we are in The True (tō alēthinō) One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is The True (ho alēthinos) God and the life everlasting.





1 John 1.6 – 8…Jesus

If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and we walk in darkness, we lie and are not practicing The Truth (tēn alētheian). But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of His Son Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and The Truth (hē alētheia) is not in us.


1 John 2.4…Jesus

The one saying, I have known Him, and not keeping His commands is a liar, and The Truth (hē alētheia) is not in that one.



1 John 2.21 – 23…Jesus

I did not write to you because you do not know The Truth (tēn alētheian), but because you know Him, and because every lie is not of The Truth (tēs alētheias). Who is the liar, except the one denying, saying that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son. Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father.


1 John 3.18 – 19…Jesus

My little children, let us not love in word, or in tongue, but in deed and in Truth (alētheia). And in this we shall know that we are of The Truth (tēs alētheias), and shall persuade our hearts before Him,




1 John 4.3 – 6…Jesus

And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God; and this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already in the world. Little children, you are of God and have overcome them, because He in you is greater than he in the world. They are of the world; because of this they speak of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God; the one knowing God hears us. Whoever is not of God does not hear us. From this we know the spirit The Truth (tēs alētheias), and the spirit of error.

 

[Apple7]

(Cont.)...

(Cont.)...

Not only is Jesus Christ ‘The Truth’ in the Holy Bible -but in the Koran, as well...





Defining the term…


الحق = “alhaqqi”

“alhaqqi” definition:

The Truth; one of the names of “allah” ; due share; justice; right claim; what ought to be; duty; incumbent.

It comes from the root “haqqa”, which means it was, or became, suitable to the requirements of wisdom, justice, right or rightness, truth, or reality, or fact; or to the exigencies of the case; it was, or became, just, proper, right, correct, or true; authentic, genuine, sound, valid, substantial, or real; established, or confirmed as truth or fact; and necessitated, obligatory, incumbent or due; it was, or became, a manifest and an indubitable fact or event; it happened, betided, or befell, surely, without doubt or uncertainty. To be right, just or fitting, worthy of, justly due to, proper, genuine, real, a fact, true, necessitated, suitable, necessary, incumbent upon, suited to the requirement of justice, become certain, authentic, deserve.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 605 – 610
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar p. 131


Per the classic definition, “alhaqqi” means 'The Truth', and is actually a name for “allah”.




Observe how “alhaqqi” is applied to Jesus Christ in the Koran…


• The Truth is only Jesus Christ (4.171)
• The Truth is The Word (6.73, 4.171)
• The Truth created the Universe (6.73, 6.101, 10.5, 14.19, 15.85, 16.3, 29.44, 39.5, 45.22, 46.3, 64.3)
• The Truth paid the debt and is the sacrifice (48.28 )
• The Truth forgives sins (47.2)
• The Truth is “Muhammad” (47.2)


An example...


يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله
إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله
وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله
ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله
إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في
السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

4.171 You The Book's family, do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only The Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger, and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe by “allah”, and his messengers, and they do not say "Three." Refrain (it is) certainly agreeable to you, only “allah” one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his Son, truly His what is in the heavens and in the earth and He sufficed by “allah”, a witness.





Here is the classic definition for “innama”…

إنما = “innama”

“innama” definition:

According to the grammarians, it is a compound of “inna” and “ma”, which latter prevents the former’s having any government: it imports restriction: it imports the restriction of that which it precedes to that which follows it. In other words, it is used to particularize, or specify, or distinguish a thing from other things: it affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it, and denies it in relation to other things. Some say that it does not import restriction, but only corroboration of an affirmation, because it is a compound of the corroborative “inna” and the redundant “ma” which restrains the former from exercising government, and that it has no application to denote negation implied in restriction. It therefore seems that it is susceptible of both these meanings, bearing one or the other according as this or that suits the place. Rendered as “only”, verily.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 103 – 111; 118
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 285
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 35
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 11


The classic definition quite clearly states that “innama” affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it.

Thus, “alhaqqi” (i.e. The Truth), is the “thing” that is being related to Jesus – which is mentioned after it.

Hence, “The Truth is only Jesus Christ”.


Thus.....its a boom moment for witness-deniers such as yourself....