Quick Question for Trinitarians # 2

 These questions aren't designed to accommodate trinitarian presupposition. They're designed to make a trinitarian reconsider his or her presuppositions with common sense, unqualified, honest, and reasonable usage of plain texts. It isn't that I don't know the typical trinitarian responses to such questions. It is that they don't seem honest, reliable, reasonable, or consistent. 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. In other words, if Yeshua and the apostles says the father is creator, who are you to say the trinity is or to add your own ideas on top of those succint kindergarten revelations? A trinitarian's first instinct will be to run to Hebrews or Colossians chapter 1. I will provide links below the video to other videos which could help one exegete those widely misused passages.

Question # 2:

Acts 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, 4 said by the Holy Spirit,“‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Anointed’

Ok, so far would you agree that the God who is being spoken about here is the One who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them?" The One who spoke in the Old Testament? Keeping that answer in mind, what do you make of verses 27 and 30 in the same chapter that refer to the "holy servant Jesus" OF this One God who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them?" In other words, if the One God who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them" and spoke in the OT was a trinity, then wouldn't this mean, according to Acts, that Yeshua is the "holy servant" of the trinity? Yes, if the creator in Genesis is a triune godhead, then how can that One be said to have a "holy servant" named Yeshua when we all know Yeshua is the holy servant of the father and not of the trinity? Malachi 2:10 actually agrees with Acts chapter 4 when it says the God who created was the father. Do you agree with Malachi and Acts? If not them, then how about Yeshua who identified the creator of man and woman as a "he?" Who IS the "he" Yeshua spoke of in Matthew 19:4, the creator Malachi spoke of in 2:10, and the God the apostles prayed to in Acts 4:24 who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them?" A triune essence? You know, the one with the "holy servant Jesus?" This milk of the word should prove without a doubt that certain New Testament passages which seem to be talking about a new creation and not the Genesis one, are being widely misused. Unless, of course, Malachi, Yeshua, and the apostles were all simply clueless as to who created man, woman, heaven, and earth. They all propose that the father alone did, while trinitarians propose that the trinity did. I guess none of them had anything that could articulate a trinity in their vocabulary?


Hebrews 1:10-12 exegesis:

Anthony Buzzard on Hebrews 1.10 & the Age to Come, the Kingdom of God

 Colossians 1 exegesis:

Colossians1:15-19 - Jesus: Co-Creator of the New Creation - Dustin Smith and J. Dan Gill

Are you scared of "Crisis of Conscience?"

When recommending Ray Franz's books to Jehovah's
Witnesses, I am most often met with appalling disgust and sentiments like "he has no proof for anything and demonizes Jehovah's organization. No way will I read his books! You hate Jehovah's Witnesses!" I actually, I'm ashamed to admit, used to share these wacky ideas because I was heavily indoctrinated with persuasive and bias Watchtower literature, which somehow causes JW's who heed it to be terrified that any criticisms of the Watchtower are apt to not only be wrong but downright dangerous because they could shipwreck your faith entirely, causing you to lose Jehovah's favor. Yes, a good sign you're in a cult is when the leadership inspires great fear when it comes to examining the opinions of those who question the leadership's claims. When Jehovah's Witnesses respond the way I just noted, I will typically respond this way:

Imagine for a moment that as a Jehovah's Witness you're witnessing to a Mormon. You recommend a book to that Mormon that exposes the truth about Mormonism and all the deceptions in it. However, the Mormon has been told by his leaders not to read any literature that doesn't come from them. That anyone who tells him that Joseph Smith or Mormonism are in any capacity wrong or to be questioned conscientiously is mentally diseased, possibly even demonized. That such persons are only trying to demonize Joseph Smith and Mormonism and shipwreck his faith and relationship with his creator. To avoid those persons with any dissenting information about Mr. Smith or Mormonism like the plague, as if they could destroy him, since that is obviously their goal. And as you, the sincere Jehovah's Witness, also try to hand this Mormon a Watchtower with an article about Mormonism's and Joseph Smith's deceptions, this Mormon says "no way will I read that. I know better. You're just trying to demonize the only true religion and shipwreck my faith. You obviously hate Mormons. Go away."

What would you think about this Mormon and how would you feel? (And I'm not suggesting Mormons would act this way..it's just a fictional illustration intended to make a point.) And would the reason for trying to help this Mormon have been because you hate him or because you care about him and want him to find out the truth?

However it is you would feel and whatever it is you would think, that's kind of how folk like me feel and think when JW's act like the Mormon in my brief illustration.

In reality, who's demonizing who here? And what are they trying to hide? Shouldn't truth be able to stand up glowingly to any scrutiny? The Watchtower unfairly demonizes Ray Franz. The only way you could possibly know if he unfairly demonizes them is if you give him the same shot you've given the Watchtower. If you ever read his books ("Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search of Christian Freedom"), not only will you be glad you did, it may change your life for the better if you care about holy scripture, justice, and truth. Ray Franz was a Christian man who knows everything that happened in the governing body meetings for a time because he was a member! He has proof and documentation for almost all of his claims, sharp and undeniable reasoning, and compassion for Jehovah's Witnesses like only someone who has been one could. I used to literally be scared to even have one of his books in the same neighborhood as me, much less pick one up to read. I am truly ashamed of myself for that. I feared men. No more. I bet you have seen some so-called "apostate" videos or websites where the people were disrespectful and off-putting. Franz is the OPPOSITE of that. If you are willing to examine the sincere truth about the Watchtower, respectfully and irrefutably presented, Ray is the way to go! He didn't harbor all the bitterness and anger and hatred a lot of ex-JW's have even though he probably was more entitled to it than any other ex-JW after all he went through, after how harshly he's been demonized & slandered.
                                                                                                                                                                                             It is those Jehovah's Witnesses online who ARE checking out supposed "apostate" web pages and youtube videos and blogs (etc.) who generally say Franz's books are a no no. Seems a little hypocritical, doncha think? So don't be like the Mormon from my earlier illustration. The bible says to make sure of and examine all things. Ray Franz wasn't critical of the bible or Yahweh. Watchtower literature is not the bible and the governing body are not Yahweh, so you should be able to discern the difference there even though the Watchtower attempts to conflate them all, imprisoning  JW's in the fear that to entertain conscientious criticism of an organization is somehow the same thing as questioning Yahweh himself! Ridiculous. Franz didn't fear men.  Do you?

I really care about and love Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean no harm here just like JW's would mean no harm if they were to witness to a Catholic about the problems within Catholicism's religious institution. As a Jehovah's Witness, you wouldn't do it to "demonize" Catholics because you hate them..you would do it to help them find Christian freedom because you care about them. So why and how could you accuse people like me of hatred and slander when I'm only doing the same things JW's do..trying to reach people with what I consider the good news from the bible while also informing them of certain dangers within religious organizations that don't conform.

Quick Question for Trinitarians!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!