There Are Many Scriptures That Disprove The Trinity
- Thread starter Swingalong
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
nwl, what does this verse below mean to you? You didn't comment on what I said in my post,, I can only assume you haven't read it, for whatever reason, no matter, I know, you're concentrating on the Word said by arwen and others. 
But what does , "Before Abraham was born, I am" mean to you? Isn't it profound speech by Jesus in The Word ? Read my post, too, for understanding of what I related to you on this matter, please. Thank you.
But what does , "Before Abraham was born, I am" mean to you? Isn't it profound speech by Jesus in The Word ? Read my post, too, for understanding of what I related to you on this matter, please. Thank you.
I'll respond to what it means to me tommorow, as I have no more time today, it's almost midnight where I am and I'm out preaching early in the morning so have to retreat.
Until then my friend
I'm not sure if I've offended you in some way?
A few posts ago I asked Arwen if he would allow me to question him regarding col 1:15 and Jesus being firstborn, he still hasn't got back to me yet.
Thus when you asked me, I told you yes I would, but when he agrees to the question.
If he doesn't agree to it or ignores it I'll happily ask you the question along with the explanation after instead.
But sadly this will happen tomorrow as I'm off to bed now.
As to the question you asked me what was it, or were you referring to what you said to the term "firstborn"?
A few posts ago I asked Arwen if he would allow me to question him regarding col 1:15 and Jesus being firstborn, he still hasn't got back to me yet.
Thus when you asked me, I told you yes I would, but when he agrees to the question.
If he doesn't agree to it or ignores it I'll happily ask you the question along with the explanation after instead.
But sadly this will happen tomorrow as I'm off to bed now.
As to the question you asked me what was it, or were you referring to what you said to the term "firstborn"?
Last edited:
I suppose that view will come from the TAINTED, NWT that has the NWT Translation's Team own footnotes, lifted into the Text to make the New World Translation say exactly what they wanted it to say, so that they could yet again avoid changing the Watchtower Society's view, making their footnotes appear to be what GOD was saying all along.
Don't believe me? The Translation Team admitted that is exactly what they did in the Foreword of the Second Edition of the New World Translation:
DOES THAT NOT SOLIDLY IDENTIFY THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY AS A FALSE PROPHET?
A lot of us Christians started pointing out to them that the New World Bible Translation Committee admitted that they lifted their footnotes into the text, thus adding their words to the Word of God. The Watch Tower Society, responded by publishing a third edition, totally changing the FORWARD, and deleting that paragraph entirely.
Prov 30:6 (KJV)
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Don't believe me? The Translation Team admitted that is exactly what they did in the Foreword of the Second Edition of the New World Translation:
DOES THAT NOT SOLIDLY IDENTIFY THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY AS A FALSE PROPHET?
A lot of us Christians started pointing out to them that the New World Bible Translation Committee admitted that they lifted their footnotes into the text, thus adding their words to the Word of God. The Watch Tower Society, responded by publishing a third edition, totally changing the FORWARD, and deleting that paragraph entirely.
Prov 30:6 (KJV)
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Isa 48.16 and 61.1 -2 are prophecies which have Yahweh The Son stating that Yahweh The Father would send Him to be The Messiah, and that Yahweh The Father would send Yahweh The Spirit with The Messiah.
Yahweh The Son and Yahweh The Spirit are sent out together, and they are sent out singly, frequently, (Isa 11.2; 34.16; 40.13; 42.01; 48.12 - 16; 59.20 - 21; 61.1 – 2; 63.10 - 14).
A few verses after Isa 61.1 - 2, the Servant of Yahweh calls Himself Yahweh…. ‘for I, Yahweh, love justice…’ Isa 61.8.
When Jesus stood up to read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue, He quoted Isa 61.1 - 2, as recorded in Luke 4.18 - 19, strongly suggesting that He is the same person as the ‘sent Yahweh’ who spoke in Isa 48.16 and Isa 61.8.
A
I am letting Scripture interpret Scripture -- I have tried to show you passages several passages together that point to why I believe what I do. However, you are interpreting those passages differently, so you understand them completely differently.
You admitted that you do not take verses and passages at face value, and that you need to get some deeper meaning from them than what they actually say. The only reason this has to be the case is because it's the only way to keep your denial that Jesus is YHWH up. I know that you honestly believe that the Scriptures teach that only the Father is YHWH.
But please understand that I am convinced that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is YHWH.
This is the main difference between our viewpoints.
Just because I consented that the Father may have created the world through Jesus doesn't mean that I am convinced of your argument. To me, all of creation being created through Jesus still makes Him Creator, and fully participating in the act of creation along with the Father. The Father and Jesus are both YHWH.
I think Isaiah 63 is prophetically speaking of Jesus, as I explained earlier. Nowhere did I ever consent to the Father alone being the Creator. But it isn't just because Jesus participated in the act of creating the world that I consider Him to be YHWH. That is just one of many supporting pieces of evidence.
You explain these pieces of evidence away -- and that is because you have to in order to maintain the viewpoint that only the Father is Jehovah.
It does matter quite a bit, and I realized that I was quoting the NRSV there instead of the NASB. The NRSV uses "like" while the NASB uses "as." Clearly, this is meant to be comparison language. When the Bible calls Jesus God, it does not say "like God" or "as God." It calls Him God.
So what you are doing is using a verse that is meant to be a comparison and then applying it to all the instances when Jesus is called God in the Bible so that you can maintain your beliefs.
If there is only one God, then anything other than God would be a false God -- this only applies to things that are actually called gods -- not comparisons using "like" or "as." If there was an angel who was pretending to be God, then yes, that would be a false god, if it truly made itself out to be God.
Moses obviously was not pretending to be God....but God used Moses to act as judge over Pharaoh. We get this from the context of the passage, just as we get that Jesus is God from the context of the passage of those verses. So of course Moses wasn't a false god because he never actually claimed to be any deity. Context is everything.
Then those verses must have no meaning for you. Even the people responsible for revising the NWT understand this idea....that is why they deliberately inserted words that are not found in the Greek into those verses to try to obscure what the verses actually declare about Jesus.
God is not a created thing, and He isn't a "thing."
When you read Colossians 1:15, you assume that it is saying that Jesus is a created being. When I read it, I see it as talking about Jesus as having supremacy over all created things...given the context of the entire passage.
You admitted that you do not take verses and passages at face value, and that you need to get some deeper meaning from them than what they actually say. The only reason this has to be the case is because it's the only way to keep your denial that Jesus is YHWH up. I know that you honestly believe that the Scriptures teach that only the Father is YHWH.
But please understand that I am convinced that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is YHWH.
This is the main difference between our viewpoints.
Just because I consented that the Father may have created the world through Jesus doesn't mean that I am convinced of your argument. To me, all of creation being created through Jesus still makes Him Creator, and fully participating in the act of creation along with the Father. The Father and Jesus are both YHWH.
I think Isaiah 63 is prophetically speaking of Jesus, as I explained earlier. Nowhere did I ever consent to the Father alone being the Creator. But it isn't just because Jesus participated in the act of creating the world that I consider Him to be YHWH. That is just one of many supporting pieces of evidence.
You explain these pieces of evidence away -- and that is because you have to in order to maintain the viewpoint that only the Father is Jehovah.
It does matter quite a bit, and I realized that I was quoting the NRSV there instead of the NASB. The NRSV uses "like" while the NASB uses "as." Clearly, this is meant to be comparison language. When the Bible calls Jesus God, it does not say "like God" or "as God." It calls Him God.
So what you are doing is using a verse that is meant to be a comparison and then applying it to all the instances when Jesus is called God in the Bible so that you can maintain your beliefs.
If there is only one God, then anything other than God would be a false God -- this only applies to things that are actually called gods -- not comparisons using "like" or "as." If there was an angel who was pretending to be God, then yes, that would be a false god, if it truly made itself out to be God.
Moses obviously was not pretending to be God....but God used Moses to act as judge over Pharaoh. We get this from the context of the passage, just as we get that Jesus is God from the context of the passage of those verses. So of course Moses wasn't a false god because he never actually claimed to be any deity. Context is everything.
Then those verses must have no meaning for you. Even the people responsible for revising the NWT understand this idea....that is why they deliberately inserted words that are not found in the Greek into those verses to try to obscure what the verses actually declare about Jesus.
God is not a created thing, and He isn't a "thing."
When you read Colossians 1:15, you assume that it is saying that Jesus is a created being. When I read it, I see it as talking about Jesus as having supremacy over all created things...given the context of the entire passage.
Owned completely....
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.
Now you can appreciate why studying the original languages is so vitally important....and the Book of Hebrews utterly and completely destroys your pitiful argument.
No more excuses.
Period.
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.
Now you can appreciate why studying the original languages is so vitally important....and the Book of Hebrews utterly and completely destroys your pitiful argument.
No more excuses.
Period.
T
Jehovah's Witnesses, answer me, these questions three (er... one). Why did your people find it was necessary to change key doctrines from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts? If God's Word is Absolute Truth, it stands the same now and always. Even the paraphrase Bibles have the same key doctrines of the Christian faith that the original manuscripts did.
The prophets of the Bible have taught us that God is the Almighty Ruler of the universe. God dwells in heaven. Through His Son, Jesus Christ, He created the heavens and the earth and all things that are in them. He made the moon, the stars, and the sun. He organized this world and gave it form, motion, and life. He filled the air and the water with living things. He covered the hills and plains with all kinds of animal life. He gave us day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. He made man in His own image to be a ruler over His other creations.
God is “the Great Parent of the universe,” and He “looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard”. His son is Jesus Christ also has a distinct physical body. Christ came to earth as part of God's plan for our happiness. He atoned for our transgressions.
The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead he does not have a physical body but is a Spirit personage.
God is “the Great Parent of the universe,” and He “looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard”. His son is Jesus Christ also has a distinct physical body. Christ came to earth as part of God's plan for our happiness. He atoned for our transgressions.
The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead he does not have a physical body but is a Spirit personage.
For someone who's capable understands the original languages you do sure have a hard time understanding English don't you Bowman.
In neither of those passages you referenced, is Jesus the speaker (in verse 8 of Isa 61) or is Jesus being refereed to as the one being sent (In verse 16 of Isa 48).
It's typical for Isaiah to suddenly introduce a new speaker without any notification, this is what happens in both Isaiah 61:8 and Isaiah 48:16, this is why certain translations have made it clear that a new speaker is being introduced, disclaiming that one, Jesus was the one who said "For I, Jehovah" (thus making him YHWH) in Isaiah 61:8, and secondly that the one who said "Jehovah himself has sent" was in reference to Jesus being YHWH in Isaiah 48:16 or two Jehovah's.
(Isaiah 61:1 WEB) The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is on me; because Yahweh has anointed me to preach good news to the humble. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of Yahweh's favor
This is Isaiah speaking with a twofold meaning which is applied to the Messiah also, the latter verses go onto show show a new speaker by the use of quotation marks ("").
(Isaiah 61:8,10-11 WEB) "For I, Yahweh, love justice, I hate robbery with iniquity; and I will give them their recompense in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. Their seed shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which Yahweh has blessed"The verse then goes back to the original speaker who was speaking from verse 1: I will greatly rejoice in Yahweh, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation.
Quotation marks Identifying a new speaker -The Father Jehovah in this case- can be seen in the NET from verse 5-9 from the WEB, ISV, NIV and NLT from verses 8-11, it should be noted that just because lots of other translation have left out the quotation marks doesn't imply they think the speaker of Isaiah 61:1,2 is the same speaker as verse 8, they've simply left them out.
This same thing can be found in Isaiah 45:16. Isaiah again didn't identify a new speaker, as such, some bibles also don't identify a new speaker, however others do which allows us to better understand the one being sent wasn't Jesus but the new speaker;
(Isaiah 68:16 WEB) Come near to me and hear this: "From the beginning I [Yahweh] have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I." Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, with his Spirit.
Who is the "me" in the latter part of the verse? is it Jesus or someone else? The RSV, NIV and WEB shows the quotations marks as to address me as Isaiah himself, the NAB also to address a new speaker and call that person Cyrus. The Holy Bible:ERV edition literally reads as follows;
(Isaiah 48:16 HB:ERV) "...'Come here and listen to me! ... from the beginning, I spoke clearly, so that people could know what I said.' Then Isaiah said, `Now the Lord [Jehovah] my master sends me and his Spirit to tell you these things.'..."
All the above translations are trintarian translations. If they, the scholars, thought there was any justification to translate it to show that there's two Jehovah's, then I'm sure they would of jumped at the opportunity.
Bowman your again missing a basic fact, that God spoke on those many occasions and 'in various forms' (polytropos as in many 'forms of ways', not to be confused with 'bodily forms'') by means of the prophets.
The scripture isn't expressing that God spoke in many ways and in many forms to the prophets, but rather that God spoke in many ways and forms to the people through the prophets, your simply half quoting scripture and then twisting it to fit your dogma. Your exegesis on the verse is clearly incorrect.
(Hebrews 1:1) "...Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son..."
In neither of those passages you referenced, is Jesus the speaker (in verse 8 of Isa 61) or is Jesus being refereed to as the one being sent (In verse 16 of Isa 48).
It's typical for Isaiah to suddenly introduce a new speaker without any notification, this is what happens in both Isaiah 61:8 and Isaiah 48:16, this is why certain translations have made it clear that a new speaker is being introduced, disclaiming that one, Jesus was the one who said "For I, Jehovah" (thus making him YHWH) in Isaiah 61:8, and secondly that the one who said "Jehovah himself has sent" was in reference to Jesus being YHWH in Isaiah 48:16 or two Jehovah's.
(Isaiah 61:1 WEB) The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is on me; because Yahweh has anointed me to preach good news to the humble. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of Yahweh's favor
This is Isaiah speaking with a twofold meaning which is applied to the Messiah also, the latter verses go onto show show a new speaker by the use of quotation marks ("").
(Isaiah 61:8,10-11 WEB) "For I, Yahweh, love justice, I hate robbery with iniquity; and I will give them their recompense in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. Their seed shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which Yahweh has blessed"The verse then goes back to the original speaker who was speaking from verse 1: I will greatly rejoice in Yahweh, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation.
Quotation marks Identifying a new speaker -The Father Jehovah in this case- can be seen in the NET from verse 5-9 from the WEB, ISV, NIV and NLT from verses 8-11, it should be noted that just because lots of other translation have left out the quotation marks doesn't imply they think the speaker of Isaiah 61:1,2 is the same speaker as verse 8, they've simply left them out.
This same thing can be found in Isaiah 45:16. Isaiah again didn't identify a new speaker, as such, some bibles also don't identify a new speaker, however others do which allows us to better understand the one being sent wasn't Jesus but the new speaker;
(Isaiah 68:16 WEB) Come near to me and hear this: "From the beginning I [Yahweh] have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I." Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, with his Spirit.
Who is the "me" in the latter part of the verse? is it Jesus or someone else? The RSV, NIV and WEB shows the quotations marks as to address me as Isaiah himself, the NAB also to address a new speaker and call that person Cyrus. The Holy Bible:ERV edition literally reads as follows;
(Isaiah 48:16 HB:ERV) "...'Come here and listen to me! ... from the beginning, I spoke clearly, so that people could know what I said.' Then Isaiah said, `Now the Lord [Jehovah] my master sends me and his Spirit to tell you these things.'..."
All the above translations are trintarian translations. If they, the scholars, thought there was any justification to translate it to show that there's two Jehovah's, then I'm sure they would of jumped at the opportunity.
Bowman your again missing a basic fact, that God spoke on those many occasions and 'in various forms' (polytropos as in many 'forms of ways', not to be confused with 'bodily forms'') by means of the prophets.
The scripture isn't expressing that God spoke in many ways and in many forms to the prophets, but rather that God spoke in many ways and forms to the people through the prophets, your simply half quoting scripture and then twisting it to fit your dogma. Your exegesis on the verse is clearly incorrect.
(Hebrews 1:1) "...Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son..."
Of course I admitted I don't accept things based on face value, the Bible cautions us against judging ‘according to face value.’ 2 Corinthians 10:7
You keep saying that "all of creation being created through Jesus still makes Him Creator" but yet you've already acknowledge two facts, that 'the Father is the originator of creation' and not Jesus (Heb 1:1,2) thus showing the Father is the Creator. Secondly that simply because someone picks up pieces of a already made up design and creates doesn't imply he's the original creator, those two facts which you agreed with conflict with the idea that Jesus is also the creator. Your in denial you just don't know it my friend.
So when Jesus said to the Jewish judges, "you are gods" does that mean that those Judges should be understood as false gods?
Just remember that when the NWT inserts words into scripture (in order to convey a better meaning) there is another Bible and another translator -both trinitarian and non alike- that has translated the verse the same, it is a lie that only the NWT adds words in to convey better what they feel to be the correct rendering, in fact all Bibles do this.
All I ask and say for now regrading Col 1:15 is this.
The main two opinions people have with the term "firstborn" in Col 1:15 is one, in regards to rank, that Firstborn was used in the sense to express that Jesus was the "Ruler of all creation" or "Supreme of all creation". Or secondly, that "Firstborn" was in reference to time, for example being the literal firstborn son of a Father.
The book of Colossians 1:18 reads in reference to Jesus "He is...the firstborn from the dead". Now answer me this, if Jesus didn't die, could it be said he was "the firstborn from the dead"? Please state yes or no and explain why not in a sentence. (It isn't a trick question and is as simple as it seems)
You keep saying that "all of creation being created through Jesus still makes Him Creator" but yet you've already acknowledge two facts, that 'the Father is the originator of creation' and not Jesus (Heb 1:1,2) thus showing the Father is the Creator. Secondly that simply because someone picks up pieces of a already made up design and creates doesn't imply he's the original creator, those two facts which you agreed with conflict with the idea that Jesus is also the creator. Your in denial you just don't know it my friend.
So when Jesus said to the Jewish judges, "you are gods" does that mean that those Judges should be understood as false gods?
Just remember that when the NWT inserts words into scripture (in order to convey a better meaning) there is another Bible and another translator -both trinitarian and non alike- that has translated the verse the same, it is a lie that only the NWT adds words in to convey better what they feel to be the correct rendering, in fact all Bibles do this.
All I ask and say for now regrading Col 1:15 is this.
The main two opinions people have with the term "firstborn" in Col 1:15 is one, in regards to rank, that Firstborn was used in the sense to express that Jesus was the "Ruler of all creation" or "Supreme of all creation". Or secondly, that "Firstborn" was in reference to time, for example being the literal firstborn son of a Father.
The book of Colossians 1:18 reads in reference to Jesus "He is...the firstborn from the dead". Now answer me this, if Jesus didn't die, could it be said he was "the firstborn from the dead"? Please state yes or no and explain why not in a sentence. (It isn't a trick question and is as simple as it seems)
A
I know that I haven't answered all your posts yet, and I do intend to do so. I did want to address this specific one, though, friend.
If we read all of Revelation, then it becomes clear that, in context, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last is referring to Jesus Christ. In it, Jesus is worshiped along with the Father as God. The imagery used to describe Jesus in it is identical to the imagery used to describe YHWH in the OT.
Jesus is the one who is coming again. That is part of what our Christian hope is.
You'll also see that it is Jesus who speaks often in this book. It isn't the Father.
Revelation 22:20 shows that it is Jesus who is coming, not the Father.
Also, look how Jesus is identified here:
Revelation 19:11-16 (NASB)
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. [SUP]12 [/SUP]His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. [SUP]13 [/SUP]He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. [SUP]15 [/SUP]From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will [SUP][a][/SUP]rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the [SUP][b][/SUP]wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
How could Jesus not be YHWH with such a description as this?
Also, let's look at this one again:
Revelation 21:6-7 (NASB)
6 Then he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
You claim I'm not interpreting Scripture with Scripture, so here you go:
John 4:7-14 (NASB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP]There *came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus *said to her, “Give Me a drink.” [SUP]8 [/SUP]For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. [SUP]9 [/SUP]Therefore the Samaritan woman *said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) [SUP]10 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” [SUP]11 [/SUP]She *said to Him, “[SUP][b][/SUP]Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? [SUP]12 [/SUP]You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” [SUP]13[/SUP]Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; [SUP]14 [/SUP]but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
John 7:37-39 (NASB)
[SUP]37 [/SUP]Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “[SUP][a][/SUP]If anyone is thirsty, [SUP][b][/SUP]let him come to Me and drink.[SUP]38 [/SUP]He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From [SUP][c][/SUP]his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” [SUP]39 [/SUP]But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
There we go...
If we read all of Revelation, then it becomes clear that, in context, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last is referring to Jesus Christ. In it, Jesus is worshiped along with the Father as God. The imagery used to describe Jesus in it is identical to the imagery used to describe YHWH in the OT.
Jesus is the one who is coming again. That is part of what our Christian hope is.
You'll also see that it is Jesus who speaks often in this book. It isn't the Father.
Revelation 22:20 shows that it is Jesus who is coming, not the Father.
Also, look how Jesus is identified here:
Revelation 19:11-16 (NASB)
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. [SUP]12 [/SUP]His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. [SUP]13 [/SUP]He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. [SUP]15 [/SUP]From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will [SUP][a][/SUP]rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the [SUP][b][/SUP]wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
How could Jesus not be YHWH with such a description as this?
Also, let's look at this one again:
Revelation 21:6-7 (NASB)
6 Then he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
You claim I'm not interpreting Scripture with Scripture, so here you go:
John 4:7-14 (NASB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP]There *came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus *said to her, “Give Me a drink.” [SUP]8 [/SUP]For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. [SUP]9 [/SUP]Therefore the Samaritan woman *said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) [SUP]10 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” [SUP]11 [/SUP]She *said to Him, “[SUP][b][/SUP]Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? [SUP]12 [/SUP]You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” [SUP]13[/SUP]Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; [SUP]14 [/SUP]but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
John 7:37-39 (NASB)
[SUP]37 [/SUP]Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “[SUP][a][/SUP]If anyone is thirsty, [SUP][b][/SUP]let him come to Me and drink.[SUP]38 [/SUP]He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From [SUP][c][/SUP]his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” [SUP]39 [/SUP]But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
There we go...
A
I'll answer this part now....I still plan to answer the rest of this post and the others.
If Jesus didn't die, could it be said He was "the firstborn from the dead?" My answer to this is....yes.....now let me explain. Since the context in which that passage is found is about Jesus' overall supremacy, then the "firstborn from the dead," is also about this. Jesus has first place in everything.
Now, when He died for us, it is true that He was the first one to receive a resurrected body/glorified body. But that isn't what the passage is referring to.
If Jesus didn't die, could it be said He was "the firstborn from the dead?" My answer to this is....yes.....now let me explain. Since the context in which that passage is found is about Jesus' overall supremacy, then the "firstborn from the dead," is also about this. Jesus has first place in everything.
Now, when He died for us, it is true that He was the first one to receive a resurrected body/glorified body. But that isn't what the passage is referring to.
Owned again...
The Trinitarian interpretation of Isa 48.16 is consistent with Isa 61.1, 08, just as it is with the rest of the book of Isaiah, in that Yahweh The Son is speaking.
Isaiah did not break into the monologue to interject that Yahweh had sent The Spirit.
If you are at all familiar with more than just what you google from the JW propaganda websites, then you would already be cognizant that in the legions of locations in the Book of Isaiah, alone, ‘The Word of Yahweh’ refers to The Second Person of The Trinity…just as The Son is also referred to as ‘The Word’ in the NT.
The Book of Hebrews owns you like no other.
Not only does the book initiate with the declaration that the ONE God revealed Himself as containing plural parts, and that He revealed Himself to the people as such, but then in verse two, He declares that He now reveals Himself in The Second Person of The Trinity, which is now called The Son.
The Son also existed in the OT....He was just not known as The Son until the NT.
Further, the faith examples set forth in Hebrews are from the OT, and are Trinitarian in nature with the Second Person of The Trinity as the subject. That is why the faith examples are concluded with the statement that Jesus is the 'Originator and perfector of our Faith'....as He existed even in the OT.
Study up...
The Trinitarian interpretation of Isa 48.16 is consistent with Isa 61.1, 08, just as it is with the rest of the book of Isaiah, in that Yahweh The Son is speaking.
Isaiah did not break into the monologue to interject that Yahweh had sent The Spirit.
If you are at all familiar with more than just what you google from the JW propaganda websites, then you would already be cognizant that in the legions of locations in the Book of Isaiah, alone, ‘The Word of Yahweh’ refers to The Second Person of The Trinity…just as The Son is also referred to as ‘The Word’ in the NT.
The Book of Hebrews owns you like no other.
Not only does the book initiate with the declaration that the ONE God revealed Himself as containing plural parts, and that He revealed Himself to the people as such, but then in verse two, He declares that He now reveals Himself in The Second Person of The Trinity, which is now called The Son.
The Son also existed in the OT....He was just not known as The Son until the NT.
Further, the faith examples set forth in Hebrews are from the OT, and are Trinitarian in nature with the Second Person of The Trinity as the subject. That is why the faith examples are concluded with the statement that Jesus is the 'Originator and perfector of our Faith'....as He existed even in the OT.
Study up...