This is a scripture that should really jolt any true critical thinker wide awake if he or she is interested.
Acts 3:13 says:
"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus."
Okay, first note how the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers" is distinguished from Yeshua as a separate being, succintly and irrefutably. Next, a serious question that must be answered:
If the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers" is a triune homoousios, how can He "glorify his servant Jesus" if Yeshua is that same "God of Abraham?" Yes, Acts 3:13 proves with zero doubt who the God of Deuteronomy 6:4 really is! If that God is supposed to be a trinity, then one would have to say "the trinity glorified his servant Jesus." I can hear the trinitarians now telling me that sometimes that One God is identified as just the father, and I would agree in a more consistent manner, but I think it's preposterous and desperate to make up whoever you want him to be at any given time to suit your own presuppositions and desires. If you're going to say it's just the father in Acts 3:13, then you should be consistent with that. Where's the holy spirit here? Is the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers" one, two, or three people in Acts 3:13, and why would it ever be okay to be inconsistent with that interpretation? As a trinitarian, how comfortable are you saying that the One God of our fathers from Deuteronomy 6:4 glorified his "servant" Yeshua? What common sense impression should be gathered from such a statement?
The video says "Question number 1" because it was originally more than one question. This may be a series..not sure. It isn't that I don't know the typical trinitarian responses to such questions. It is that they don't seem honest, reliable, or reasonable. So when I ask such questions it is to plant seeds as opposed to gathering trinitarian responses unless those responses are going to help them see that they are abusing scripture. That they are defining God however they like whenever they like instead of just taking the explicit texts to tell them who he is without their added inference when they desire it.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
James White: Helping America nip critical thinking right in the bud!
I mistakenly said in this video that the caller wanted to know how Christ could be 100 percent man if he was also 100 percent God. But he was really inquiring how he could be 100 percent God if he was 100 percent man, essentially anyway. Sorry about that! Talk of a trinity always scrambles the brain.
This is a "Dear Christians against the Watchtower" special edition. When you hear the White clip (turn up your speakers!), you will think Jehovah's Witness elders are pussycats. No doubt many trinitarians will think and say White gave a good defense of his faith. But if they heard this same kind of intellectual intimidation, judgment, and condescension from Jehovah's Witness elders toward conscientious objectors, they would use it for proof that the Watchtower is evil. Hypocrisy.
This is a "Dear Christians against the Watchtower" special edition. When you hear the White clip (turn up your speakers!), you will think Jehovah's Witness elders are pussycats. No doubt many trinitarians will think and say White gave a good defense of his faith. But if they heard this same kind of intellectual intimidation, judgment, and condescension from Jehovah's Witness elders toward conscientious objectors, they would use it for proof that the Watchtower is evil. Hypocrisy.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Watchtower's "new light" on the faithful and discreet slave
The following is a link to explain.
http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/governing-body-says-we-are-the-faithful-and-discreet-slave
Wow. Just, wow. How I ever bought anything the Watchtower sells is beyond me at this point. Mind-boggling. I almost feel like calling the sole anointed brother in my former congregation up and consoling him on his demotion. But he'd just tell me the same thing he told me when I disassociated. Namely, that we must "change with the organization and trust Jehovah." Which translated means that we must obey fallible men no matter what and link the organization so inextricably with Jehovah that it becomes an idol.
http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/governing-body-says-we-are-the-faithful-and-discreet-slave
Wow. Just, wow. How I ever bought anything the Watchtower sells is beyond me at this point. Mind-boggling. I almost feel like calling the sole anointed brother in my former congregation up and consoling him on his demotion. But he'd just tell me the same thing he told me when I disassociated. Namely, that we must "change with the organization and trust Jehovah." Which translated means that we must obey fallible men no matter what and link the organization so inextricably with Jehovah that it becomes an idol.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Do you believe in hell? 5 simple questions for ya!
I believe in gehenna (hell) too! I believe gehenna consumes and destroys. So what I mean in the title of this blog is "do you believe in the traditionalist misuse and misinterpretation of gehenna, namely as a fire that never ever consumes?" This is my laziest shortest blog entry ever.
Answer me these 5 kindergarten questions (scriptures are even there to help out):
1. In the bible, does unquenchable fire preserve or consume? (Ezekial 20:47, Amos 5:6, Matthew 3:12)
2. In the bible, do worms that don't die preserve souls or consume corpses? (Isaiah 66:24)
3. In the bible, does the lake of fire perform a different function for death than it does the wicked, which are both thrown there in the same passage? (1 Corinthians 15:26, Revelation 20:14)
4 .In the bible, is eternal fire said to reduce to ashes or to infinitely preserve? (Jude 1:7, 2 Peter 2:6)
5. In the bible, are the wicked said to become ashes or to never be reduced to ashes? (Malachi 4:3)
Thanks and God bless!
Answer me these 5 kindergarten questions (scriptures are even there to help out):
1. In the bible, does unquenchable fire preserve or consume? (Ezekial 20:47, Amos 5:6, Matthew 3:12)
2. In the bible, do worms that don't die preserve souls or consume corpses? (Isaiah 66:24)
3. In the bible, does the lake of fire perform a different function for death than it does the wicked, which are both thrown there in the same passage? (1 Corinthians 15:26, Revelation 20:14)
4 .In the bible, is eternal fire said to reduce to ashes or to infinitely preserve? (Jude 1:7, 2 Peter 2:6)
5. In the bible, are the wicked said to become ashes or to never be reduced to ashes? (Malachi 4:3)
Thanks and God bless!
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Trinitarians deny the true humanity of Christ
Brief excerpt from Greg Deuble's book "They Never Told Me This in Church!" p. 163
"So the order of appearance is quite clear: Adam first, Christ second. Christ is the last Adam. Adam precedes Christ. Adam was not a copy of a heavenly, preexistent Christ, but “a type of him who was to come” (Rom. 5: 17). As a true man Jesus was patterned after the likeness of Adam! In contrast to this biblical model, however, it will no doubt be a huge surprise for most who read this and believe that Jesus was born the Infant-God (as cited above in Swindoll, Packer, et al) that official Incarnational theology teaches that Jesus was not “a man” but was rather in fact impersonal “man.” That is official Trinitarian teaching. It proposes that Jesus the Son of God has human nature, but is not a human person! At the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) orthodoxy officially taught that God the Son united himself to a personless human nature. The “ego” of Jesus (i.e. his true centre of personality) is his Godhood because he is the second Person of the blessed Trinity. Because the Son of God had no beginning but simply came through Mary, he merely assumed impersonal human nature; therefore Jesus does not have a true human personal ego or centre. One commentator puts it this way:
"Now the doctrine of the Incarnation is that in Christ the place of a human personality is replaced by the Divine Personality of God the Son, the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Christ possesses a complete human nature without a human personality. Uncreated and eternal Divine Personality replaces a created personality in Him."(Leslie Simmonds "What Ye Think of Christ?" quoted in "Focus on the Kingdom".ed. Anthony buzzard,vol. 7,no. 3,p.5)
Thus, the shocking truth of the official doctrine of the Incarnation is that Jesus is de-humanized. It turns out he really is not like the first man Adam, not like us after all, not a man, but “man” in a nebulous, generic sense. According to the Bible model this disqualifies Jesus from being the “seed of the woman,” the genuine descendant of David, and means he cannot be our Saviour!
my thoughts:
Many trinitarians don't even know this and would probably, secretly at least, be appalled in their conscience. Those who do know will justify it in some of the most inventive and imaginative ways one could ever fathom. To me, the fact that the true humanity of Christ is chalked up to nothing but some nebulous indefinable "nature" instead of actual personhood is easily spotted to be one of the most unbiblical and preposterous things one could ever fancy. There is NO way trinitarians don't have secret problems with this in their conscience if they ever read their bible. Perhaps the more defensive they get about it, the more it might secretly bother them. For those who don't have conscientious issues with such nonsense, I am sad for you. Truly. No one can stop you from redefining terms to fit your dogma(words like "man" and "God"), but when the time comes, you WILL know the truth, and you'll be like me after I left the Watchtower. Wondering how you ever could have believed all the lies you're being fed. That's the nature of deception when one wakes up from it's powerful slumber. The typical trinitarian will always run first to John 1:1 to desperately try and justify what they believe is God coming through a womb with flesh,but what they should do is take the plain, unambiguous statements throughout the totality of scripture and believe them. Then when something seems to contradict or give you seeming justification for severe and jolting qualification of the entire bible's easy revelations and sentiments, examine the texts you think do from new eyes, with an open mind. Then, be honest. This can only be accomplished when you remember the milk and the words of Christ first before your misuse of those few-and-far-between less easily understood(at first and on the surface through modern day eyes, at least) texts. Instead of taking those few texts to butcher, rearrange, redefine, rework, and/or slaughter the simply stated unambiguous truth in the vast majority of kindergarten passages. You HAVE to know what I mean if you've ever listened to Christ. Please do so without presupposing anything!
"So the order of appearance is quite clear: Adam first, Christ second. Christ is the last Adam. Adam precedes Christ. Adam was not a copy of a heavenly, preexistent Christ, but “a type of him who was to come” (Rom. 5: 17). As a true man Jesus was patterned after the likeness of Adam! In contrast to this biblical model, however, it will no doubt be a huge surprise for most who read this and believe that Jesus was born the Infant-God (as cited above in Swindoll, Packer, et al) that official Incarnational theology teaches that Jesus was not “a man” but was rather in fact impersonal “man.” That is official Trinitarian teaching. It proposes that Jesus the Son of God has human nature, but is not a human person! At the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) orthodoxy officially taught that God the Son united himself to a personless human nature. The “ego” of Jesus (i.e. his true centre of personality) is his Godhood because he is the second Person of the blessed Trinity. Because the Son of God had no beginning but simply came through Mary, he merely assumed impersonal human nature; therefore Jesus does not have a true human personal ego or centre. One commentator puts it this way:
"Now the doctrine of the Incarnation is that in Christ the place of a human personality is replaced by the Divine Personality of God the Son, the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Christ possesses a complete human nature without a human personality. Uncreated and eternal Divine Personality replaces a created personality in Him."(Leslie Simmonds "What Ye Think of Christ?" quoted in "Focus on the Kingdom".ed. Anthony buzzard,vol. 7,no. 3,p.5)
Thus, the shocking truth of the official doctrine of the Incarnation is that Jesus is de-humanized. It turns out he really is not like the first man Adam, not like us after all, not a man, but “man” in a nebulous, generic sense. According to the Bible model this disqualifies Jesus from being the “seed of the woman,” the genuine descendant of David, and means he cannot be our Saviour!
my thoughts:
Many trinitarians don't even know this and would probably, secretly at least, be appalled in their conscience. Those who do know will justify it in some of the most inventive and imaginative ways one could ever fathom. To me, the fact that the true humanity of Christ is chalked up to nothing but some nebulous indefinable "nature" instead of actual personhood is easily spotted to be one of the most unbiblical and preposterous things one could ever fancy. There is NO way trinitarians don't have secret problems with this in their conscience if they ever read their bible. Perhaps the more defensive they get about it, the more it might secretly bother them. For those who don't have conscientious issues with such nonsense, I am sad for you. Truly. No one can stop you from redefining terms to fit your dogma(words like "man" and "God"), but when the time comes, you WILL know the truth, and you'll be like me after I left the Watchtower. Wondering how you ever could have believed all the lies you're being fed. That's the nature of deception when one wakes up from it's powerful slumber. The typical trinitarian will always run first to John 1:1 to desperately try and justify what they believe is God coming through a womb with flesh,but what they should do is take the plain, unambiguous statements throughout the totality of scripture and believe them. Then when something seems to contradict or give you seeming justification for severe and jolting qualification of the entire bible's easy revelations and sentiments, examine the texts you think do from new eyes, with an open mind. Then, be honest. This can only be accomplished when you remember the milk and the words of Christ first before your misuse of those few-and-far-between less easily understood(at first and on the surface through modern day eyes, at least) texts. Instead of taking those few texts to butcher, rearrange, redefine, rework, and/or slaughter the simply stated unambiguous truth in the vast majority of kindergarten passages. You HAVE to know what I mean if you've ever listened to Christ. Please do so without presupposing anything!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)