You would lay 10-1 that God prefers people studying unprovable details abouut himself rather than studying how to improve mankind's situation on earth?

Don't stop now. If you follow the numbers you might get the picture as intended.

I think God wants whichever one best glorifies God.

First point: If you're trying to use the Colossians 1 "firstborn" to mean "first created" when the Greek very clearly says "pre-eminent" and not "first created," that mistake is on you, not me. I don't know if you just aren't aware of the Greek text or if you're wilfully spreading disinformation, but in either case, trying to use Colossians 1 to say Jesus was created is simply incorrect.

Second point: You cite four posts worth of interaction with me, but in those posts, you often sidestepped the main point of my posts, promising to "deal with it in a future post," including how many gods there are in the universe (from John 1:1) and why God is referred to as plural (Elohim) thousands of times in the Old Testament when the word for a singular god (El) also exists but is used far less commonly.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but all I see here is a guy who, once confronted with difficult information, opts to back out of the conversation rather than continue. So far, you've cherry picked my posts, given surface level answers where convenient, and ignored the rest.

Within the link ( http://penei.org/besora-trinity.shtml ), there is a useful section "Vocabulary Comparison", using scripturally appropriate ( IMHO, more accurate ) vocabulary concerning specfic statements related to but not supporting the doctrine of the Trinity, especially when communicating with people that are raised Jewish ( I've omitted the example verses/scriptural references for brevity ):


Scripturally appropriate vocabulary / Traditional ( "Christian" ) vocabulary
================================================

Yeshua is divine. / Yeshua is G-d.

Yeshua came from G-d. / Yeshua came from the Father.

Yeshua has a G-d. / Yeshua has a Father.

Yeshua is the Son of G-d. Accepting Yeshua is the right way to accept the Father and receive good things. / Yeshua is the Son of the Father. Accepting Yeshua is the right way to accept the Father and receive good things.

Sometimes the Holy Spirit is spoken of as Yeshua's. Sometimes it is spoken of as G-d's. / Sometimes the Holy Spirit is spoken of as Yeshua's. Sometimes it is spoken of as the Father's.

The word "G-d" refers only to the Father. / The word "Father" refers only to the Father.

Yeshua ( although divine ) is not G-d. / Yeshua ( although G-d ) is not the Father.

=======

Of course, some Trinitarians will refuse to use the more accurate and less offensive terminology; bear in mind that various types of supersessionism is common among "Christians".


Consider also the earliest formulation of the Nicene Creed ( from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed ) in 325 CE, which in part, corroborates with 1 Cor 8:6 :

First Council of Nicea (325)
====================

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
=======

love christian vs. christian threads!

does alter2ego remind anyone else of this fine lady?

You left off the second half of the verse.

Read 1 John 2 particularly verse 23, Romans 10:9 and Revelation 5.

Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

It's not through works.

No, I'd lay 10:1 that God is "sad that people who are intelligent enough to write these detailed posts are spending time on this nonsense."

Jehovah's Witnesses: Salvation Through Works
http://www.watchman.org/jw/worksjw.htm

ALTER2EGO -to- SPENDOUR:
Show me the fabricated scriptures where it says they are 1 X 1 X 1 = 3 so I can debunk them. I am very good at exposing fabrications in the Bible, in case you haven't figured that out by now.


I again present the definition of Trinity that was given by the polytheistic Romans—the same Romans who crucified Jesus Christ and then proceeded to adapt Christianity and thereafter perverted it with pagan doctrines. Trinity is one of their perversions.

Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of ONE SUBSTANCE, POWER, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."


TRINITY FALSEHOOD #1:
The word "Godhead" is a fabricated word that showed up for the first time in an English translation in the 14th century AD/CE—1,300 years after the last book of the Bible was written under Divine inspiration of Jehovah. The word was first introduced as "godhood" by John Wycliffe in his English Translation. By the time the King James Version was published in 1611, the word "godhood" had been changed to "Godhead."


TRINITY FALSEHOOD #2:
The expression "one substance" is based upon the premise that the holy spirit is a person. The scriptures indicate the holy spirit is an extension of Jehovah's power and therefore it is not a person at all. It is a THING. I will expand on this in future posts.


TRINITY FALSEHOOD #3:
The expression "one power" suggests Jehovah and Jesus Christ are CO-EQUAL. The scriptures repeatedly indicate Jesus is subservient to Jehovah while on earth and while in heaven. He is constantly taking instructions from Jehovah. At no time does Jesus the son give instructions to Jehovah. It is always the reverse.


TRINITY FALSEHOOD #4:
The expression "one eternity" suggests Jehovah and Jesus Christ have always existed and that they are both eternal. The scriptures indicate only Jehovah has always existed and that Jesus was created by Jehovah. An eternal person cannot die. The historical facts show that Jesus Christ literally died.

Definition of Eternal:
"Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/eternal

No I'm not going to bother debunking the Watch Tower play book. It's too time consuming.

Quote: "Members are encouraged to study the Watch Tower Bible in conjunction with the other Watch Tower publications and discouraged from studying the Bible by itself."

Jehovah's Witnesses
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j02.html


God's 'Only Organization'?
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, representing all of Jehovah's Witnesses, refers to itself as the "'faithful and discreet slave' organization."

Those who believe that The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is God's only representative organization on earth won't be surprised to learn that - according to itself - only the organization is qualified to explain God's Word:

Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book.
Source: The Watchtower, July 1, 1973, page 402


We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the 'faithful and discreet slave' organization.
Source: The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, page 19


Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason, the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j02aa.html#noselfstudy

ALTER2EGO -to- SPLENDOUR:

I never said salvation is through works alone. That topic didn't even come up until you just brought it up now. The topic of this thread is the pagan Trinity. I notice I addressed some of your erroneous conclusions and you completely ignored what I said. Meanwhile, you are now doing the usual Jehovah's Witnesses bashing that I encounter at every website where I debate.


BTW: Why are you referring me to 1 John 2:23 and telling me salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ? If you'd pay attention to things I post on this forum you would realize that I concur with that statement. For goodness sakes, I even started a thread a while back entitled: "JESUS CHRIST: Myth or Historical Person?" in which I presented evidence that Jesus was a real historical person. I did that because atheists routinely argue that he never really existed outside the pages of the Bible. Here is the link to the thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...erson-1183414/


When you get there, read my opening post as well as post #14 on page 1. Also, when you have time, read post #17 and #18 on page 2, and post #37 on page 3.

Despite yours and my disagreement on the Trinity, I believe the info I provided in those particular posts will be useful to you and any Christian—the next time you run into an atheist who tries to argue Jesus Christ is a myth.


You will find post #188 on page 13 of the thread particularly telling in terms of my regard for Jesus Christ. Here is the weblink.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...4/index13.html



Also be sure and read my post #230 on page 16 of the thread.

ALTER2EGO -to- SPLENDOR.

Not only are many of the contents of this blog completely false, the fact that you posted it in this thread indicates you could care less whether or not it is true and that you are only interested in spreading slander. You could have written me a private message and asked me about it, and I would have pointed out to you the false statements contained therein.

These types of anti-Jehovah's Witness blogs are all over the Internet because Jehovah's Witnesses is the most hated Christian group on this planet. In addition, many of the people who post these inaccuracies are former Jehovah's Witnesses that were disfellowhipped aka expelled from the congregation for wrongdoing. Rather than repent and be reinstated into the congregation, they instead set up websites in which they devote their time attacking the Watchtower Society.

Jehovah's Witness haters like you willingly lap it up and believe whatever is said in these types of blogs because it suits your purposes. Since your love affair with false doctrines such as Trinity and hellfire are prime targets for attack by truth loving people like Jehovah's Witnesses, and you could care less what the Bible really says, your way of solving the problem is to download crap from the Internet.


You posting inaccuracies like that is an act of war. I consider it a personal attack against me. As of now, the conversation between us is permanently over. You are now on my "Ignore" list. In case you don't know what happens when you're on a person's "Ignore" list, it means the person is no longer able to see anything you post anywhere on the website.




Now, go ahead and knock yourself out downloading more crap from the Internet. See if I care.

The sad thing being thunderfoot might of been able make some progress with the daughters if it weren't for the mother. The daughters can at times seem reasonable, and from what I can tell, they are usually pretty nice. The mother on the other hand....

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:

Since I did indeed tell you that I would address John 1:1 and "Elohim," I will fulfill my obligation in that regard.

As for your insistence that Colossians 1:15 is not with reference to "firstborn" but instead means "preeminent," you are in error. I may not read Greek and Hebrews, but I do a lot of research online and off. In so doing, I am able to gain insight from the studies of those who do read Greek and Hebrews.

I will debunk your argument that "preeminent" is the correct word shortly. But before I do so, let me say this: If your position is that the use of the word "preeminent" instead of "firstborn" at Colossians 1:15 somehow means the pre-human Jesus Christ was not a created being, your argument fails. I will quote the scripture again using the word "preeiminent" and show you why you fail. Keep your eyes on the words in bold and all caps within the quotation.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the preeminent of ALL CREATION;.." (Colossians 1:15)

Notice that the word "preeminent" does not change the fact that the verse is still saying Jesus Christ is among "all creation." Therein lies the failure of your argument that Jesus Christ is not a created being.


Truth be told, the correct word is not "preeminent" but instead is as I originally posted it. The correct word should be FIRSTBORN for the following reasons set forth by one Greek scholar. Keep your eyes on the words in printed in bold red within the quoted text below.

http://responses.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/firstborn/

~***~

Jehovah Witnesses say that the Holy Spirit isn't a person because of the neuter gender in Greek. Can you respond?

"On the one hand, the Jehovah's Witnesses are quite right: Greek grammar does not support the translation of "he" for the Holy Spirit. The passages you mentioned in John do not actually use the masculine pronoun to refer directly to the Holy Spirit. I published an article on this in 2003 in the Bulletin of Biblical Review. It's called "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit." Now, that's on a grammatical level.

But the JWs take this beyond the evidence by saying that since the grammar doesn't support the personality of the Holy Spirit, there is nothing else that does." end quote


More here: http://bible.org/question/jehovah-wi...an-you-respond

Quote: "Jehovah's Witnesses trace their origins to the nineteenth century Adventist movement in America."

A Short History of the Watchtower Organization
http://www.bible.ca/jw-history.htm

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:

You are in error when you say the word "El" is only used for a singular god. The word "El" is used for singular god as well as for plural gods. But since your issue is with the world "Elohim," that's the word I will address.



"Elohim" is a Hebrew word. Hebrew does not follow the same rules for plurals as what we see in English. In Hebrew, the plural is found in the accompanying verb or adjective.

The Hebrew word "Elohim" is used interchangeably to mean "god" (singular) or "gods" (plural). If the accompanying verb or the adjective is singular, that's the clue that Elohim is referring to a singular god. If the accompanying verb or the adjective is plural, that's the clue that Elohim is with reference to more than one (plural) gods. There is no such word as "Elohims" because Hebrew does not place the plural on the subject of the sentence; it places the plural on the accompanying verb or the accompanying adjective.


In all instances in the Bible when Elohim is used with reference to Jehovah, THE VERB accompanying Elohim IS ALWAYS A SINGULAR VERB. This is confirmed by the quotations below from four independent sources concerning the use of the word Elohim. Keep your eyes on the words that are bolded in red.


http://www.enotes.com/topic/Elohim


http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm


ALTER2EGO'S COMMENTARY:
Whenever the ancient Israelites used Elohim with reference to Jehovah, they used it to emphasize Jehovah God's magnitude and dignity and excellence, and it was ALWAYS accompanied by a singular verb—indicating a singular God. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia confirms that the ancient Israelites were "unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic," meaning they would not have worshipped a triune/trinity god.

The Encyclopedia Britannica confirms that the term "Elohim" is used to express extreme majesty and that it's used when speaking of singular gods, including false gods such as the Moabite god Chemosh. The word Elohim is also used for angels, kings, and judges. In other words, it is used when speaking of individuals that are in powerful positions, as follows:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/185251/Elohim


I will deal with John 1:1 later as this info I'm providing here (along with my previous post on the Greek used in Colossians 1:15) is rather extensive and is likely overwhelming other readers at this point.

~***~

I guess we just agree to disagree then. The information you quoted is incorrect (the Greek word for "born first" is not used in Colossians 1), every non-JW scholar agrees on this (including secular Bible scholars), and you lack the ability to check for yourself, so we are at an impasse.

Note I am not even Christian let alone a trinitarian, I have nothing to gain in any way by being right and nothing at stake if I'm wrong. I'm simply reporting the reality staring bluntly in the face of anyone who has studied in this area - the Greek word for "born first" is not present in Colossians 1, the word for "pre-eminent" is.

From my perspective, it feels like I'm standing under a blue sky, and there are other people with me, outside, looking up at the sky saying, "It's blue!"

Meanwhile, you sit in house with closed doors and shuttered windows saying, "I googled it, and my sources say it's red!"

I expect further interactions to go similarly, but I eagerly await your responses nonetheless.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s120QJv6Ikg

You can start at about 3:25 on the youtube clip to see what I thought of.

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:

The "impasse" exists in your mind alone. There is no impasse. Trinitarians have been grasping at straws and arguing back and forth on this word "firstborn" vs. "preeminent" at Colossians 1:15 for years. I demonstrated that even with the use of the word "preeminent" at Colossians 1:15, it does not change the fact that the remainder of the verse indicates Jesus is a created being. Why so? Because the remaining words in the verse compares Jesus Christ to ALL CREATION, as follows.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the preeminent of ALL CREATION;.." (Colossians 1:15)


Put that along with the verses of scripture that immediately follow--Colossians 1:16-17--and it becomes clear that Jesus could be nothing other than 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)


According to those two verses, Jehovah allowed Jesus to assist in creating all other things. Unless Jesus was on the creation scene as "firstborn of all creation," the scripture at Colossians 1:16-17 would make absolutely no sense.

Summary: "I run like a cheetah" implies that I am a cheetah. Makes sense.

Also, "I am different than a cheetah" also implies that I am a cheetah because I am comparing myself to a cheetah.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
(Colossians 1:16-17 ESV)

Your translation renders a totally different meaning. Especially the word "other" in verse 16. Can you show me how you would get that from the Greek origin? As far as I can tell in a quick search is the word πάντα that is generally translated to all, all things, everything. I am not seeing where "all other things" comes from. Unless you're suggesting the Greek word τὰ implies "other", but that doesn't make sense, because in Mark 4:19 "other things" is τὰ λοιπὰ, not τὰ πάντα.

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:
You can continue arguing that the Greek term for preeminent was used at Colossians 1:15 until you're blue in the face. Other Greek scholars disagree with you. So it boils down to who one wants to believe. Not only that, as I twice demonstrated, the use of the word "preeminent" instead of "firstborn" does not change the fact that the following words at Colossians 1:15 identify the pre-human Jesus Christ as a created being by comparing him with "all creation."

On top of that, the angelic version of Jesus-Christ had to have been created prior to all other created beings by Jehovah so that by means of Jesus: "All other things have been created through him and for him." (Colossians 1:16-17).



BTW: If you are not a Christian, then you are definitely a trolling atheist interested only in causing dispute among debating Christians by your input in this thread. You clearly are promoting the pagan Trinity, while making snide remarks about me and about Jehovah's Witnesses. In other words, you are on the side of Trinity and against Jehovah's Witnesses who reject the Trinity. So when you claim you are neutral, you are lying to yourself. People do not get in debates and prolong it, while making snide remarks against one side specifically--unless they are passionately involved and have a stake.


How you label yourself is irrelevant. Actions speak louder than words, as they say. You have done nothing in this thread except argue for the Trinity while indicating you are against Jehovah's Witnesses. By default, you are on the side of the Trinitarians who are members of Christendom. In other words, your position is not neutral.


To put it simply, you are a Trinitarian with atheist tendencies who opposes Jehovah's Witnesses. I know it, and you know it, and everyone who has read what you posted in this thread will have figured that out by now.

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:

Correction: In your house you are a trolling atheist who gets in threads dealing with Christian doctrine. Then you do what trolling atheists do: you self-promote, trying to impress others with your speculations and opinions, while insisting you have no stake. But of course you have a stake. Trolls always do.


BTW: I don't do links. If you wish to make a statement, summarize it and be done with it. I have neither the time nor the inclination to view a youtube link about your thoughts. Frankly, your thoughts thus far haven't made much of an impression on me. So you can hardly expect me to strain myself watching you self-promote on youtube; now can you?

Serious question here, but given that most religions seem to promote peace, love etc, why is it that you come across as pretty nasty and spiteful? Is this common among JW's or just frustrated ones?