Evidence for God from Science

Well, the Bible does say that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. I've seen the rebuttal to that on another page of this site, but it is illogical. The rebuttal states that Adam is the firstborn, while Jesus was born thousands of years later. But, that goes against what Jesus Himself stated. He said the He had a prehuman existence. And anyway, it said that He is the firstborn of creation, not the firstborn of men.

This argument assumes we believe Jesus was created 2000 years ago. We don't believe that. We believe He has always existed.

As for your quote on Matthew 4:7: Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, `You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"
That was when Satan was tempting Jesus to throw Himself off a building, that if He really was the Son of God, then God would save Him with angels. But Jesus rebuked by saying the above quote. Meaning that you shouldn't test God's by saying that if He loves me, He'll do this. That quote had nothing to do with tempting Jesus, and in thus tempting God. B/c if it did, that would be Jesus casting away Satan, when that was the second temptation, not the third.

Satan wasn't talking to the father, he was talking to Jesus. He was trying to tempt Jesus with worldly possessions and power, because Satan thought that if Jesus was a man, He could be corrupted. For you to assume Satan tried tempt the father is ridiculous when the beginning of Matthew 4 clearly stated these are JESUS's temptations. You yourself called it his second temptation. How can you think it is Jesus's second temptation if you just said He tempted the father?

As for the John 1:1 quote. Trinitarians also point to John 1:1 in some translations, where “the Word” is spoken of as being “with God” and as being “God.” But other Bible translations say that the Word was “a god” or was “divine,” meaning not necessarily God but a powerful one. Furthermore, that Bible verse says that “the Word” was “with” God. That would reasonably exclude him from being that same God. And no matter what is concluded about “the Word,” the fact is that only two persons are mentioned at John 1:1, not three. Over and over again, all texts used to try to support the Trinity doctrine utterly fail to do so when examined honestly.

I don't trust your translations, especially since deviant cults like JWs and Mormons have Freemason ties, which should at least raise an eyebrow. And Jesus Himself speaks of the third part of the Trinity. First, the Spirit of God comes down when Jesus is baptised. Then Jesus says that sins against the Son will be forgiven, but not those against the spirit.

"I am"
As for John 8:58 “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.”
Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'”

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God's created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus' natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.

Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”?

I've never heard of "I am" as being used as a title, so the rest of your quotes are rather useless. As for the "context":

[30] I and the Father are one."
[31]The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[32] Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
[33] The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."

I see no mention of Abraham. They wanted to stone Him because they knew that calling yourself the Son of God was the same thing as calling yourself God.

Also, the Holy Spirit isn't described as a seperate person anywhere in the Bible. It is interesting that the Holy Spirit is the one "person" Trinitarians are most vague about. The Holy Spirit is God's active force, not a person. If the Holy Spirit was a person, how can people be filled with it? Mt 3:16; Joh 20:22; Acts 2:4, 17, 33 It's not a person in heaven with God and Christ. Ac 7:55, 56; Re 7:10 It is directed by God to acomplish purposes. Ps 104:30; 1 Co 12:4-11 Those serving God are guided by it. 1 Co 2:12, 13; Ga 5:16

Read up the scene where Jesus is baptised. I believe the spirit descends as a dove. And since God is omnipresent, by your logic, God can't be a person either because He's everywhere. But if you accept that God can be both a person and everywhere, it should be no difficulty for you to accept that the spirit can be a person and be in our hearts.

Also, you will not find one part in the Bible in which the Trinity is explained in full detail, nor did the Apostles teach this. But, you say it is implied? Why would the Bible simply imply one of the most important things-what God is? Why didn't Jesus explain this vital information to the apostles so that they could explain it to others? The Bible is perfectly clear on all other teachings, why not this one? If the Trinity is true, I don't think God would've left such an important teaching for imperfect humans to figure out, but rather, would've explained it clearly in His inspired word. Also, why would God keep the secret from all those in the OT? Were they just unworthy to know what the God they loved and worshipped was made of?

I think Jesus made it pretty clear. I honestly don't know how people can be confused by the trinity as all 3 persons that compose it are clearly mentioned. In addition, when reading Genesis, the word used for "God" is Eloheim which is plural for something along the lines of "the one with power", which is God. Plural for "THE one" doesn't really make sense, but a trinity would make God both singular and plural, as it is one God made of 3 persons.

Mastermind wrote:Well, the Bible does say that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. I've seen the rebuttal to that on another page of this site, but it is illogical. The rebuttal states that Adam is the firstborn, while Jesus was born thousands of years later. But, that goes against what Jesus Himself stated. He said the He had a prehuman existence. And anyway, it said that He is the firstborn of creation, not the firstborn of men.

This argument assumes we believe Jesus was created 2000 years ago. We don't believe that. We believe He has always existed.

No, that argument assumes nothing. Jesus being the firstborn of creation is blatantly stated in the Bible. I was referring to the argument the guy who made this site made. He said that saying Jesus is the firstborn is inaccurate b/c Adam was the firstborn. That's not a false assumption, that's the statement the guy that made this website said. So I said, that argument is incorrect b/c Jesus Himself said He had a prehuman existence.

As for your quote on Matthew 4:7: Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, `You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"
That was when Satan was tempting Jesus to throw Himself off a building, that if He really was the Son of God, then God would save Him with angels. But Jesus rebuked by saying the above quote. Meaning that you shouldn't test God's by saying that if He loves me, He'll do this. That quote had nothing to do with tempting Jesus, and in thus tempting God. B/c if it did, that would be Jesus casting away Satan, when that was the second temptation, not the third.

Satan wasn't talking to the father, he was talking to Jesus. He was trying to tempt Jesus with worldly possessions and power, because Satan thought that if Jesus was a man, He could be corrupted. For you to assume Satan tried tempt the father is ridiculous when the beginning of Matthew 4 clearly stated these are JESUS's temptations. You yourself called it his second temptation. How can you think it is Jesus's second temptation if you just said He tempted the father?

??? I never said Satan was tempting the Father. Satan was tempting Jesus, by asking Him to jump off and if He is really God's son then God would save Him. Jesus replies "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord" Meaning you shouldn't tempt by saying if He loves me, He'll save me. Satan was trying to get Jesus to tempt Father.

As for the John 1:1 quote. Trinitarians also point to John 1:1 in some translations, where “the Word” is spoken of as being “with God” and as being “God.” But other Bible translations say that the Word was “a god” or was “divine,” meaning not necessarily God but a powerful one. Furthermore, that Bible verse says that “the Word” was “with” God. That would reasonably exclude him from being that same God. And no matter what is concluded about “the Word,” the fact is that only two persons are mentioned at John 1:1, not three. Over and over again, all texts used to try to support the Trinity doctrine utterly fail to do so when examined honestly.

I don't trust your translations, especially since deviant cults like JWs and Mormons have Freemason ties, which should at least raise an eyebrow. And Jesus Himself speaks of the third part of the Trinity. First, the Spirit of God comes down when Jesus is baptised. Then Jesus says that sins against the Son will be forgiven, but not those against the spirit.

Well, John 1:1 says blatantly that the Word was with God. How can the translation of "the Word is God" be accurate in that case? How can the Word be God and be with God? And the Holy Spirit isn't mentioned at all in John 1:1.

Also, the Holy Spirit isn't described as a seperate person anywhere in the Bible. It is interesting that the Holy Spirit is the one "person" Trinitarians are most vague about. The Holy Spirit is God's active force, not a person. If the Holy Spirit was a person, how can people be filled with it? Mt 3:16; Joh 20:22; Acts 2:4, 17, 33 It's not a person in heaven with God and Christ. Ac 7:55, 56; Re 7:10 It is directed by God to acomplish purposes. Ps 104:30; 1 Co 12:4-11 Those serving God are guided by it. 1 Co 2:12, 13; Ga 5:16

Read up the scene where Jesus is baptised. I believe the spirit descends as a dove. And since God is omnipresent, by your logic, God can't be a person either because He's everywhere. But if you accept that God can be both a person and everywhere, it should be no difficulty for you to accept that the spirit can be a person and be in our hearts.

Your argument that the Holy Spirit is a person b/c it descended like a dove is faulty. If it is God's active force, keyword a force, then it can descend like a dove, figuratively speaking.

Also, you will not find one part in the Bible in which the Trinity is explained in full detail, nor did the Apostles teach this. But, you say it is implied? Why would the Bible simply imply one of the most important things-what God is? Why didn't Jesus explain this vital information to the apostles so that they could explain it to others? The Bible is perfectly clear on all other teachings, why not this one? If the Trinity is true, I don't think God would've left such an important teaching for imperfect humans to figure out, but rather, would've explained it clearly in His inspired word. Also, why would God keep the secret from all those in the OT? Were they just unworthy to know what the God they loved and worshipped was made of?

I think Jesus made it pretty clear. I honestly don't know how people can be confused by the trinity as all 3 persons that compose it are clearly mentioned. In addition, when reading Genesis, the word used for "God" is Eloheim which is plural for something along the lines of "the one with power", which is God. Plural for "THE one" doesn't really make sense, but a trinity would make God both singular and plural, as it is one God made of 3 persons.

No, it is not made clear. Jesus, nor the apostles, never taught the trinity. The word Trtinity is found nowhere in the Bible. The teaching that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal and coeternal is not found anywhere in the Bible.

This is a quote from one of my friends, which I think explains the plurality of the pronoun in Genesis quite clearly. It's a bit long, but it's a good read.

Jehovah God was apparently referring to himself and his only-begotten Son when he said: “The man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.” (Genesis 3:22) Consider why.

Jehovah said these words after pronouncing sentence upon the first human couple. Some have taken the expression “one of us” as the plural of majesty, just as a human king might say “we are not pleased” when referring only to himself. With regard to Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, however, Bible scholar Donald E. Gowan says: “There is no support in the Old Testament for most of the proposed explanations: the royal 'we,' the deliberative 'we,' the plural of fullness, or an indication of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. . . . None of these explanations makes much sense in 3:22, which speaks of 'one of us.'”

Could Jehovah have been referring to Satan the Devil, who had come to decide “good and bad” on his own and who had influenced the first humans to do the same? That is not reasonable. Here Jehovah used the expression “one of us.” Satan was no longer among the throng of Jehovah's faithful angels, so he could not have been included with those who were on Jehovah's side.

Was God referring to the faithful angels? We cannot say definitely. However, the similarity of the expressions at Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 gives us a clue. At Genesis 1:26, we read that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” To whom was he addressing these words? Referring to the spirit creature who became the perfect man Jesus, the apostle Paul said: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Yes, it seems logical that at Genesis 1:26, Jehovah was speaking to his only-begotten Son, the “master worker,” who was at his side during the creation of the heavens and the earth. (Proverbs 8:22-31) The similarity of the expression at Genesis 3:22 suggests that Jehovah was again speaking to the one closest to him, his only-begotten Son.

God's only-begotten Son apparently had knowledge of “good and bad.” From his long and intimate experience with Jehovah, he certainly learned well his Father's thinking, principles, and standards. Convinced of his Son's acquaintance with these and loyalty to them, Jehovah may have granted him some latitude in handling matters without direct consultation with Him in each instance. So the Son would to this extent be able and authorized to determine what was good and bad. However, unlike Satan, Adam, and Eve, he did not set up a standard that conflicted with Jehovah's.

Also, since Moses is the writer of Genesis, and Genesis alludes to a Trinity, why was their religion strictly monotheistic throughout their entire history?

Also, here are scirptures that rebuke the Trinity.

Matthew 21:20-23 "The came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and having desire a certain thing of him, And he[Jesus] said unto her, 'What wilt thou?' She saith unto him, 'Grant that these two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.' But Jesus answere and said, 'Ye know not what you ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism I am baptised with?' They say unto him 'We are able.' And he saith unto them 'Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given unto them for whom it is prepared for my Father."

If Jesus was equal to God, why didn't He just give the woman a yes/no answer? Why would He have said it isn't His place to give?

And if Jesus and God are one, why did Jesus pray to God to ask Him to spare Him from dieing? (Matthew 26:39 and Matthew 26:42) If they are the same person, it would seem that Jesus would've already known it was God's will for him to die.

Mastermind wrote:Which other bible translations? Would they be similar to the egyptian burial rites the mormons claimed to be the word of God?

All I see is excuses and interpretations that require a great deal of imagination to work. As for Jesus existing before Abraham, no Christian doubts that. We believe He has always existed.

You do realise there have been a bunch of translations of the Bible, and English is not the original language of the Bible, right?

As for those egyptian burial rights being similar to JW. No. JWs get thier information from the original Greek/Hebrew or whatever other languages there were in the Bible, and then study it from there, and see what English translation is the most accurate. They do not get their information from human councilors, a Pope, nor some lunatic named John Smith. Also, Bible translators can be biased in the way they translate certain things, such as the scipture that Trinitarians think points out a Trinity when it doesn't. They get their information from the original Greek/Hebrew of the Bible. In essense, we all have the same information.

Also, technically I am not a JW yet. I have many JW beliefs, but I haven't been baptised as a JW yet, and thus, I am technically not a JW. But, I do have many JW beliefs.

i am confused.

I was referring to the argument the guy who made this site made. He said that saying Jesus is the firstborn is inaccurate b/c Adam was the firstborn. That's not a false assumption, that's the statement the guy that made this website said. So I said, that argument is incorrect b/c Jesus Himself said He had a prehuman existence.

Actually, this site says Adam was the firstborn man. Jesus isn't a man by JW standards either, i think.

??? I never said Satan was tempting the Father. Satan was tempting Jesus, by asking Him to jump off and if He is really God's son then God would save Him. Jesus replies "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord" Meaning you shouldn't tempt by saying if He loves me, He'll save me. Satan was trying to get Jesus to tempt Father.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Jesus need to tempt the father? If He jumped and died, He could just raise Himself from the dead. And again, this isn't a temptation of Jesus if what you say is true. For Jesus to be tempted, He has to have something to gain from it, like in the other two. In the first one He could end His hunger. In the second one, provided the Son could save Himself, He would be tempted to show His extraordinary power in the middle of the biggest city in Israel. In the third one He would be given a kingdom on Earth. If He Hneeded His Father's help, he would have no power of His own to display.

Well, John 1:1 says blatantly that the Word was with God. How can the translation of "the Word is God" be accurate in that case? How can the Word be God and be with God? And the Holy Spirit isn't mentioned at all in John 1:1.

First, why would the Holy Spirit be mentioned? John is writing about the main character, which happens to be Jesus. Jesus Himself talks about the Holy Spirit several times, so you can't complain about there not being mention of it.

Second, I like the way you pick the one you want. You choose to take "the word is God" as truth and automatically discard the other one to fit in with your beliefs. In other words, you're calling John a liar. But given your lack of understanding of the properties the trinity has, I'm not surprised. The trinity is 3 as one. God is infinity. Infinity has no mathematical properties, so I can say infinity>infinity, infinity=infinity and infinity<infinity and neither statement would be wrong. From our point of view, saying the Word was with God and the Word was God is perfectly acceptable, as Jesus is both a part of the trinity and the trinity itself. infinity+infinity+infinity=infinity

Your argument that the Holy Spirit is a person b/c it descended like a dove is faulty. If it is God's active force, keyword a force, then it can descend like a dove, figuratively speaking.

So you're calling Matthew a liar now. Wow. There is no reason to believe it is "figuratively speaking, unless you're trying to make the evidence fit your beliefs.

No, it is not made clear. Jesus, nor the apostles, never taught the trinity. The word Trtinity is found nowhere in the Bible. The teaching that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal and coeternal is not found anywhere in the Bible.

The father and I are one.
Sins agains the Son will be forgiven but baslphemy against the Holy Spirit will not

Using the properties of the trinity and these two statements, we can derive that:
A. Jesus and the Father are equal, and both God. Even if Jesus was born before all time, He would still be equal to his father as a kid infinity is still infinity.
B. Jesus says the Spirit is better than Him. This tells us the spirit is equally powerful. Remember the properties of infinity. Infinity+1=infinity. So if the Spirit is bigger than infinity, then the Spirit IS infinity.
You're right, the apostles never "taught trinity". They did, however mention all 3 and refer to them as deities(well, the father and spirit should be rather obvious)

This is a quote from one of my friends, which I think explains the plurality of the pronoun in Genesis quite clearly. It's a bit long, but it's a good read.

It's also full of assumptions. You can interpret it any way your like, but the fact remains that "Let us make man in our image" implies that "us" is equal.

Also, since Moses is the writer of Genesis, and Genesis alludes to a Trinity, why was their religion strictly monotheistic throughout their entire history?

Oh? You mean there was never a prophecy of the Son of God coming, nor was it well known that calling yourself the Son of God is the same thing as calling yourself God? I must have imagined those verses I quoted last time which clearly stated that to the jews, Son of God=God.

Also, here are scirptures that rebuke the Trinity.

Matthew 21:20-23 "The came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and having desire a certain thing of him, And he[Jesus] said unto her, 'What wilt thou?' She saith unto him, 'Grant that these two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.' But Jesus answere and said, 'Ye know not what you ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism I am baptised with?' They say unto him 'We are able.' And he saith unto them 'Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given unto them for whom it is prepared for my Father."

If Jesus was equal to God, why didn't He just give the woman a yes/no answer? Why would He have said it isn't His place to give?

Because it wasn't. His Father is in charge of Heaven.

Actually, I just looked through Rich's page on the issue of Jesus being the first born and I fail to see the error in his message. He's right.

Mastermind wrote:

I was referring to the argument the guy who made this site made. He said that saying Jesus is the firstborn is inaccurate b/c Adam was the firstborn. That's not a false assumption, that's the statement the guy that made this website said. So I said, that argument is incorrect b/c Jesus Himself said He had a prehuman existence.

Actually, this site says Adam was the firstborn man. Jesus isn't a man by JW standards either, i think.

It refutes the interpretation of the quote in Colossians meaning that Jesus was created first by saying that Adam was the first. When the quote from Colossians never said firstborn of men, but creation.

??? I never said Satan was tempting the Father. Satan was tempting Jesus, by asking Him to jump off and if He is really God's son then God would save Him. Jesus replies "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord" Meaning you shouldn't tempt by saying if He loves me, He'll save me. Satan was trying to get Jesus to tempt Father.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Jesus need to tempt the father? If He jumped and died, He could just raise Himself from the dead. And again, this isn't a temptation of Jesus if what you say is true. For Jesus to be tempted, He has to have something to gain from it, like in the other two. In the first one He could end His hunger. In the second one, provided the Son could save Himself, He would be tempted to show His extraordinary power in the middle of the biggest city in Israel. In the third one He would be given a kingdom on Earth. If He Hneeded His Father's help, he would have no power of His own to display.

No, you are wrong. In the second temptation, Jesus would not be using His own power to save Himself, but angels. Here, let's look at scripture.

Matthew 4:6 And [the devil] saith unto him, if thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down; for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against the stone.

See? Satan isn't tempting Jesus to fly, He is tempting Him to put God to the test and make God send down angels to catch Him. As for He would be resurrected if He just fell, no. Jesus was risen b/c He was sinless, correct? Isn't suicide a sin?

Well, John 1:1 says blatantly that the Word was with God. How can the translation of "the Word is God" be accurate in that case? How can the Word be God and be with God? And the Holy Spirit isn't mentioned at all in John 1:1.

Second, I like the way you pick the one you want. You choose to take "the word is God" as truth and automatically discard the other one to fit in with your beliefs. In other words, you're calling John a liar. But given your lack of understanding of the properties the trinity has, I'm not surprised. The trinity is 3 as one. God is infinity. Infinity has no mathematical properties, so I can say infinity>infinity, infinity=infinity and infinity<infinity and neither statement would be wrong. From our point of view, saying the Word was with God and the Word was God is perfectly acceptable, as Jesus is both a part of the trinity and the trinity itself. infinity+infinity+infinity=infinity

How could Jesus be with God, and be with God? Also, that scripture could mean that Jesus is like God, b/c as we both know English is not the language the Bible was originally written in.

Your argument that the Holy Spirit is a person b/c it descended like a dove is faulty. If it is God's active force, keyword a force, then it can descend like a dove, figuratively speaking.

So you're calling Matthew a liar now. Wow. There is no reason to believe it is "figuratively speaking, unless you're trying to make the evidence fit your beliefs.

I'll have to look that one up, I'm confused about this.

No, it is not made clear. Jesus, nor the apostles, never taught the trinity. The word Trtinity is found nowhere in the Bible. The teaching that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal and coeternal is not found anywhere in the Bible.

The father and I are one.
Sins agains the Son will be forgiven but baslphemy against the Holy Spirit will not

Using the properties of the trinity and these two statements, we can derive that:
A. Jesus and the Father are equal, and both God. Even if Jesus was born before all time, He would still be equal to his father as a kid infinity is still infinity.
B. Jesus says the Spirit is better than Him. This tells us the spirit is equally powerful. Remember the properties of infinity. Infinity+1=infinity. So if the Spirit is bigger than infinity, then the Spirit IS infinity.
You're right, the apostles never "taught trinity". They did, however mention all 3 and refer to them as deities(well, the father and spirit should be rather obvious)

As for A, at one point, Eli and John the batptist are called one. But it is understood that that means that they have the same kind of spirit/attitude. Why does this mean any different? And B is faulty. According to the Trinity, all are coequal and coeternal. You can't add or subtract infinity, b/c if you could, then it's not infinity, just a huge number. You can't be bigger than infinity.

Also, since Moses is the writer of Genesis, and Genesis alludes to a Trinity, why was their religion strictly monotheistic throughout their entire history?

Oh? You mean there was never a prophecy of the Son of God coming, nor was it well known that calling yourself the Son of God is the same thing as calling yourself God? I must have imagined those verses I quoted last time which clearly stated that to the jews, Son of God=God.

About those quotes. Can you show me the book and chapter of those quotes? I would like to look them up and see them for myself.

Also, here are scirptures that rebuke the Trinity.

Matthew 21:20-23 "The came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and having desire a certain thing of him, And he[Jesus] said unto her, 'What wilt thou?' She saith unto him, 'Grant that these two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.' But Jesus answere and said, 'Ye know not what you ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism I am baptised with?' They say unto him 'We are able.' And he saith unto them 'Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given unto them for whom it is prepared for my Father."

If Jesus was equal to God, why didn't He just give the woman a yes/no answer? Why would He have said it isn't His place to give?

Because it wasn't. His Father is in charge of Heaven.

But isn't that against the Trinity? I mean, accoding to the Trinity, none of the three are higher are lower than the other.

voicingmaster wrote:

Mastermind wrote:Which other bible translations? Would they be similar to the egyptian burial rites the mormons claimed to be the word of God?

All I see is excuses and interpretations that require a great deal of imagination to work. As for Jesus existing before Abraham, no Christian doubts that. We believe He has always existed.

You do realise there have been a bunch of translations of the Bible, and English is not the original language of the Bible, right?

As for those egyptian burial rights being similar to JW. No. JWs get thier information from the original Greek/Hebrew or whatever other languages there were in the Bible, and then study it from there, and see what English translation is the most accurate. They do not get their information from human councilors, a Pope, nor some lunatic named John Smith. Also, Bible translators can be biased in the way they translate certain things, such as the scipture that Trinitarians think points out a Trinity when it doesn't. They get their information from the original Greek/Hebrew of the Bible. In essense, we all have the same information.

The problem here is that the chief "translator" of the NWT is one Freddy Franz who only had a negligible grasp of Greek and virtually no Hebrew and was particularly biased as he was one of the top JW's at the time so the interlinear translation so beloved of the Jehovahs witness movement is actually a fraud.

voicingmaster wrote:
It refutes the interpretation of the quote in Colossians meaning that Jesus was created first by saying that Adam was the first. When the quote from Colossians never said firstborn of men, but creation.

You know what, I examined that page in more detail and you are right. However, you might want to look over that page and they will explain to you why Paul did not mean that he was LITERALLY born first. It was a reference to the Jewish tradition that the first born inherits the posessions of his father, just like Jesus will when He returns at the end of the world.

No, you are wrong. In the second temptation, Jesus would not be using His own power to save Himself, but angels. Here, let's look at scripture.

Matthew 4:6 And [the devil] saith unto him, if thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down; for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against the stone.

See? Satan isn't tempting Jesus to fly, He is tempting Him to put God to the test and make God send down angels to catch Him. As for He would be resurrected if He just fell, no. Jesus was risen b/c He was sinless, correct? Isn't suicide a sin?

Actually, what this verse means would depend on whether you believe Jesus was God to begin with. If you believe jesus was God, then the devil was tempting him to tempt another member of the trinity, and given the trinity's mathematical properties, tempt Himself. If you don't believe Jesus was God, then your interpretation also makes sense.

How could Jesus be with God, and be with God? Also, that scripture could mean that Jesus is like God, b/c as we both know English is not the language the Bible was originally written in.

First, I have no proof that the scripture "could mean that jesus is like God", as none of the main translations say any such thing. Second, I just explained to you how Jesus can be with God and be God. If you think this is a paradox, how about that line from John where Jesus says "The father is in me and I am in the father". That is also a paradox if one takes your interpretation as opposed to a triniy. Not to mention the fact that you think you are capable of understanding the nature of God which would be the ultimate knowledge.

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

I'll have to look that one up, I'm confused about this.

Matthew 3 I think.

As for A, at one point, Eli and John the batptist are called one. But it is understood that that means that they have the same kind of spirit/attitude.

They are the same person. You don't HAVE a spirit, you ARE a spirit. Just like John the Baptist was Elijah in a body named John, so is the Son God in the body of Jesus.

Why does this mean any different? And B is faulty. According to the Trinity, all are coequal and coeternal. You can't add or subtract infinity, b/c if you could, then it's not infinity, just a huge number. You can't be bigger than infinity.

Actually, you can add or substract infinity. It's that you'd get infinity as a result. That is why Jesus can substract a number from Himself, and being infinity, still remain equal to the Father and Spirit.

About those quotes. Can you show me the book and chapter of those quotes? I would like to look them up and see them for myself.

I gave you the quote from John in an earlier post(the one where the people wanted to stone Jesus for equating Himself with God). As for the prophecies, do you want me to quote half the Old Testament? You'll have to read them yourself if you want to know more.

But isn't that against the Trinity? I mean, accoding to the Trinity, none of the three are higher are lower than the other.

Where does it say they are? You are right, they are not. They simply allow the Father to rule in Heaven, like the Son will rule the creation and the spirit rules in the hearts of God's creations. Notice how Jesus doesn't say it is impossible for him to give the woman the request. He simply says it's not His place to do so as the Father is in charge of Heaven.

One more thing. You still have not explained the fact that Genesis referrs to the plural of what means God (Eloheim rather than Elohim). If you accept it was Jesus and the Father, then you must also accept that they are equal. Otherwise, it would be like me saying Dogs and meaning a cat and a dog. It doesn't say Elohim and Son, it says Eloheim.

How about Hebrews Chapter 1:1-14

This explains Jesus receiving worship from the angels.
God the father calling Jesus God.

Also every prophet and disciple rejected others from worship them. Jesus welcomed others to worship him. Thomas himself said to Jesus."You are my Lord and my God".

First I want to say that Mastermind has done a pretty good job here. Though, with Jesus being tempted I do agree with VM, Satan was trying to get Jesus to *Test* God by jumping off the temple, whereupon Jesus replied by quoting Dueteronomy 6:16.

voicingmaster wrote: As for your logic of why did Micheal call upon the lord to rebuke Satan in Jude, but not in Matthew 4. Your quote on "Away from me Satan..." I can't find anywhere in Matthew 4. The Matthew 4 that I read has Satan tempting Jesus 3 times by telling Him to do things which he claims aren't sins, and in each of those 3 times Jesus quotes Deuternomy to say that it is a sin. Then, after attempting to tempt Jesus, Satan gives up and leaves on his own. Not once did Jesus order Satan to leave in Matthew 4.

[Bible]Matthew 4:10

voicingmaster wrote: Also, the Holy Spirit isn't described as a seperate person anywhere in the Bible.

No? Never as a person?

John 14:15-20
“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

The Father will send *another* Counsellor, and we will know *him*. Sounds like another person to me. And he will be in us. "On that day, you will realize I am in my Father, and your are in me, and I am in you." So Jesus goes away, then sends the Counsellor, then he is in the father, we in him, and Jesus in us. That pretty much rules out the idea that a personified entity cannot be in us. I'd say it also equates the Spirit of truth with the person of Jesus pretty strongly, showing that they are one in the same.

I should also point out that even within the OT there's much evidence in support of the Trinity. But really this thread was never intended as a Trinity debate, but rather to show that Jesus is not an angel...

Colors, I don't see how the Revelation passage could be taken to show Jesus merely being "like" God. What was his specific response to that passage, which clearly shows Jesus being eternal (from before creation) and also being dead and ressurected?

HEBREWS

Chapter 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Mastermind wrote:One more thing. You still have not explained the fact that Genesis referrs to the plural of what means God (Eloheim rather than Elohim). If you accept it was Jesus and the Father, then you must also accept that they are equal. Otherwise, it would be like me saying Dogs and meaning a cat and a dog. It doesn't say Elohim and Son, it says Eloheim.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ´eloh'ah (god) has two plural forms, namely, ´elo·him' (gods) and ´elo·heh' (gods of). These plural forms generally refer to Jehovah, in which case they are translated in the singular as "God." Do these plural forms indicate a Trinity? No, they do not. In A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith says: "The fanciful idea that [´elo·him'] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

You know what, I examined that page in more detail and you are right. However, you might want to look over that page and they will explain to you why Paul did not mean that he was LITERALLY born first. It was a reference to the Jewish tradition that the first born inherits the posessions of his father, just like Jesus will when He returns at the end of the world.

Still, even though Jesus will interpret the creations at the apocalypse, b/c of Hims being the firstborn and that being a Jewish tradition, the fact still remains that, in Jewish tradition, those who are born first inherit his father's possesions.

First, I have no proof that the scripture "could mean that jesus is like God", as none of the main translations say any such thing.

Quoting watchtower.com

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:


1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']"). This first the·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"

I'll have to continue this tomorrow, as my leg is starting to hurt from a previous injury. Thus, I must go lay down, and not be sitting at my computer desk.

voicingmaster wrote:1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

So there was God Almighty, and then another God which is the word? Hmm, by my count that makes 2 Gods. Nope, that can't work:

Isaiah 44:6
"This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Not that I want you to be distracted from John 14, which clearly describes the Holy Spirit along with the oneness of Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.