Thanks for clearing that up!

If the the father and the son are separate beings, then the people in that passage just violated the first commandment. Additionally, if the holy spirit is a "thing" then the people in that passage and other areas of the Bible are committing idolatry.

There is a very strong correlation between posters with very unorthodox and consistent posting styles and between very bad posters. Take RedManPlus or GreatestIAM as other examples. Alter2ego, if you want some respect, please for the love of God or whatever else you believe in, just use a normal posting style like everybody else. No colors. No stupid formatting. No calling things "web links". No third person identifying of the guy you have just quoted. Seriously, what possible reason can you have for doing this nonsense? Just stop.

Anyways, simply showing examples from the past where there is groupings or associations of three gods hanging out close to each other is in no way complete proof that these ideas directly led to the Christian concept of a trinity which is quite a bit more specific of an idea than three gods standing beside each other. I take it as a tautology that in the history of polytheistic religions you can find groupings of three, we should not be surprised by this result. You still have an overwhelming burden of proof to demonstrate that the concept of a trinity was directly taken from previous religions for the sake of appealing to their followers

This should be unnecessary to present:

1 John 5:7-8
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
7because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one; 8and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

Also the term "godhead" is used in the Bible more than once.

end/

The 'Firstborn of all Creation' argument is a strictly JW teaching, meant to justify their own teachings. 'Firstborn of all Creation' is a position of authority, nothing more. The Firstborn is the son who recieves the full inheritance from the Father. While it typically was the first born son, that was not a requirement of the position. If the first born was unworthy, or died, then the second born inherited the title of Firstborn.

To say Jesus is the Firstborn over all Creation is a statement of his authority, not his birth right.

And the Bible very clearly teaches that the Godhead is three persons in unity.

Alter2ego I don't have the time and energy to get into this, but from the bits I read, I think your understanding of trinity theology has been poorly explained to you or misunderstood by you.

ALTER2EGO:

1 John 5:7--known as the Johannine Comma aka the Comma Johanneum--is completely fabricated. For that reason, many of the modern Bibles have removed it from their translations.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

Those extra words are absent from the Greek manuscripts and only appeared in the text of four manuscripts during the late medieval period (the Middle Ages). Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. Those older manuscripts do not contain the fabricated words found at 1 John 5:7. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned "older Bible manuscripts."

ALTER2EGO:

The word GODHEAD is a fabricated word that did not appear in the original writings of the Bible. The last book of the Bible was completed in 41 AD. That is, in the first century AD. The word GODHEDE appeared for the first time in a 14th Century AD English translation of the Bible--1,300 years after the fact. The translator who introduced the word GODHEDE was named John Wycleffe. He was a Catholic Priest. He belonged to the very same religion responsible for the Trinity dogma. By the time the King James Version was released in 1611, the word GODHEDE had been changed to GODHEAD.

ALTER2EGO -to- KB COOLMAN:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of all CREATION;.." (Colossians 1:15 -- New World Translation)

That verse of scripture is in other English translations of the Judeo-Christian Bible. In other words, the words are genuine. You can dance around trying to explain away the meaning of "firstborn of ALL CREATION" until kingdom come. Nothing you say will change the meaning of the words "all creation"--which refer to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that was created. In other words, the pre-human Jesus was created.

Below are several renditions of the same verse in other English translations. These are just a few of the many other Bibles that I can produce—and they all say the same thing.



International Standard Version
"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
"He who is the image of The Unseen God and is The Firstborn of all creation."

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"

New International Version
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

English Standard Version
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

New American Standard Bible
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."



Now let's hear your interpretation of the terminology in the scripture below. Keep your eyes on the words in all caps and bold.

"So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth." (John 1:14)

The words "firstborn" and "begotten" apply to CREATED BEINGS according to any English dictionary.


DEFINITION OF "BORN": "Born means having been given life."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born


DEFINITON OF "BEGOTTEN": "Begotten means something created something else or someone fathered a child."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/begotten

I love the fact that Alter2Ego isn't willing to trust the findings of scientists, yet has no problem whatsoever trusting a certain biblical translation over another. And *gasp* it happens to be the one that the Jehovah Witnesses are pushing...what a coincidence!

I'm not arguing the definition of the words. I'm telling you what the phase actually means. Having the authority, or right, of Firstborn is a recognition of power bestowed by the Father. Saying Jesus is the Firstborn over All Creation is saying God the Father (Jehovah) has given Jesus authority over Creation. This is confirmed other places in scripture.

Look beyond the meaning of the individual words, and understand what the phase meant to the culture. It has nothing to do with being born.

And don't get me started on the NWT...it's a linguistic piece of garbage meant only to conform to a particular theology. Not a single Greeks Scholar was among the translators. It lacks any academic pedigree.

Get an ESV study Bible

E: i think esvbible.org has a free online app.

ALTER2EGO -to- KB COOLMAN:

There is absolutely no difference between "firstBORN over all CREATION and "firstBORN OF all CREATION." The keywords are BORN and CREATION--both of which indicate that Jesus was created.

ALTER2EGO -to- KB COOLMAN:

And therein likes your problem and the problem of those who chose to cling to falsehoods. They isolate words from the context, and then they give their interpretation of the isolated word--while deliberately ignoring the context. This is the ploy you're using, as noted by what you wrote in your previous post, copied below:

ALTER2EGO -to- KB COOLMAN:

Did you see what you did when you focused only on the word "firstborn"and ignored its scriptural context? You were then able to apply ancient Jewish cultural meaning to the word "firstborn" alone. However, when the words "firstborn of ALL CREATION" remain together, the meaning is abundantly clear: the word "firstborn" in the latter instance is with reference to the first entity that was created out of ALL OTHER created beings.

Without context, one can read a word and assign whatever meaning one chooses to assign to that word. It is the context--the surrounding words, verses, and chapters--that give the correct meaning to individual words and individual verses of scriptures. People who wish to maintain erroneous beliefs routinely do what you're doing here: they ignore context because context destroys their false beliefs.

ALTER2EGO -to- KB COOLMAN:

True, the Bible does say Jehovah HAS GIVEN Jesus Christ authority over humans and over all of the other angels. But that doesn't change the fact that Jesus is himself a created being.

"And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: 'All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.' " (Matthew 28:18 -- NWT)

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18 -- KJV)


You acknowledged in your post above that "God the Father (Jehovah) has given Jesus authority over Creation." That admission on your part debunks your whole argument for Jesus and Jehovah being the same person in a trinity. "HAS GIVEN" are the key words. Are you telling this forum that Jehovah "has given authority" to HIMSELF--being that he and Jesus Christ are supposedly one God split up into three? Now tell me, what sense does that make?


In a previous post that I wrote you, I directed your attention to the scripture at John 1:14 which again indicates that the pre-human Jesus was created. There, he is referred to as "only-BEGOTTEN son." Below is the quotation of John 1:14 again, along with the definition of the words "born" and "begotten." Again, keep your eyes on the words in all caps and bold in the scripture quoted below.

"So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth." (John 1:14)


I find it quite telling that you avoided that particular scripture and ignored my previous request that you give your interpretation of the word "begotten." The words "firstborn" and "begotten" apply to CREATED BEINGS according to any English dictionary.


DEFINITION OF "BORN": "Born means having been given life."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born


DEFINITION OF "BEGOTTEN": "Begotten means something created something else or someone fathered a child."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/begotten

Jesus submitting to the Father's will does not remove his divinity. Nor does his role diminish his divinity. Similarly, when you go to a restaurant the wait staff is no less human than you are.

ALTER2EGO -to- WIZARD-50:

At no time did I say Jesus is not divine. A divine spirit person is considered a god. Jesus is a god--just like all of the other angels are gods. He is in fact the most powerful of Jehovah's angels, and it was by means of Jesus that all other things were created. Therefore, his divinity is not in question. But the scriptures say he was created by Jehovah. Therefore, he could not possibly be CO-EQUAL with Jehovah just as he is not in a trinity "godhead" with Jehovah.

"{15} He is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION; {16} because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. {17} Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist." (Colossians 1:15-17)

apparantly he's a fan of the image. Its unbelievable, but kind of also gives the impression of a troll. Even splendour posts normally.

Poe's law is such a bitch. A2E is either a great troll, or a dyed in the wool JW. Choosing between the two is impossible.

Me: It's a friggin' metaphor.
A2E: DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF CREATION AND FIRSTBORN

Its funny that when you go

it means x when the bible says x.

He then goes

Its a frigging metaphor.

The sad thing is that clearly this person is putting in a lot of effort and research and whatever which is great and can add to the forum. But you have to be willing to really internalize what others are saying and stubbornly refusing to violate an exceedingly unorthodox posting style is indicative of the larger problems

ALTER2EGO'S PREVIOUS RESPONSE:
ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

I made an error when I wrote above that the last book of the Bible was written in 41 AD.

Correction, the last books of the Bible to have been written under Divine inspiration were completed in 98 AD/CE. These are the four books of John
(John, John 1, John 2, and John 3). All four books were written by the Apostle John.

I find this post really confusing. You claim that the original autographs don't contain the word "godhead." I don't know what you base this claim on, since none of the original autographs are available. Can you do more than just blindly assert here?

I'd hardly call Wycliffe a Catholic priest. He's an early precursor of the Reformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wy...-Roberts2006-0

Wycliffe was a loltard

ALTER2EGO -to- DOGGG:
Me, "blindly assert"? Hardly. Although the original writings no longer exist, there are copies of copies of copies of the writings in the form of manuscripts. The oldest, most reliable Greek manuscripts DO NOT contain the word "Godhead". For that reason, several modern translations have removed the fabricated word "Godhead" from their Bibles.

Furthermore, it has been acknowledged by various sources that the word "Godhead" did not show up in the Bible until the 14th century AD when Catholic Priest John Wycleffe published an English translation of the Bible. Keep in mind that the last book of the Bible to be written by one of Jesus' apostles was written in the 1st Century AD--1,300 before John Wycliffe introduced the word "godhede" which evolved into the word "Godhead."


http://www.timeandbeing.com/Applicat...odheadTerm.htm

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/439307_the-godhead

I'll lay about 200 to 1 that Alter2Ego is a Jehovah's Witness or at least peeking at their play book. This stuff may as well be copy/pasted right out of their literature.

John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The English doesn't do it justice, the Greek is even more clear - The Word and God are of the same substance, not different.

(The JW version modifies this verse.)

Also, evidence of gods in sets of three is not evidence against The Trinity. There are also gods that exist on their own, but that's not evidence against your interpretation of the Christian God.

Gods also smote people, resurrected (either on their own or with help), created the world, were born of virgins, took human form, healed the sick, etc. etc. etc. If you're going to throw out the Trinity just because gods existing in sets of three also exist in prior religions, I have bad news - you'll have to throw out the whole Bible with it. There are very few pieces of the Christ narrative that don't have parallels in earlier religions, certainly not enough to build a religion on.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. I'll agree to toss out the Trinity on the grounds that similar concepts existed prior to Christianity, if you agree to throw out everything else I can find a similar parallel to.