Is Donnie and Ken just a Jehovah's Witness in Disguise?

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 8th, 2017, 5:19 pm #31

Not even cults such as the Progressive Churches of Christ bent on institution building are always wrong. The JW quote the Britannica:

Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance.


The H. Leo Boles, LU and GA teaching is TRITHEISM and is not the historic trinity. If John Mark Hicks and LU are correct and the godhead is "three separate centers of consciousness (spirits) able to hold communion" they they are ANTI historic trinitarianism. They do not grasp that:

Godhead does not mean a three-headed god but theotes speaks of the Man Jesus being filled with the DIVINE NATURE. To the extent that we are IN Cchrist with "A" holy personal spirit:

2Pet. 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
through the righteousness of God
.....AND
.....our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2Pet. 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you
.....through the knowledge of God,
.....AND
.....of Jesus our Lord,
2Pet. 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
2Pet. 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:
.....that by these
.....ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
.....having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.


People who speak exclusively of Salvation BY grace THROUGH Faith CANNOT ask or answer "Kept SAFE from WHAT"?

The answer is KEPT SAFE FROM THEM who "lade burdens" with a staff of "Burden Laders."

Salvation is DENIED by those who spend fortunes teaching a "christian WORLD view" because no potential DISCIPLE OF CHRIST (only) is OF THIS WORLD.</font>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 16th, 2017, 8:23 am #32

Dr. John Bechtle
Adjunct Professor
Degrees:
D.Min., NT Greek Instruction
M.Div., New Testament
Teaches Greek Language

Should John 1:1 be translated, “The Word was God” or “The Word was a god”? Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, and claim that John 1:1 merely calls him “a god,” but not full deity. They rest their case on three facts of Greek grammar: There is no such word as “a” or “an” in Greek, so we sometimes have to add “a” to translate into English, (Acts 28:6). The Greek word used here (theos) has two meanings: usually the supreme God revealed in Scripture, but sometimes lesser beings like the gods of Greek mythology. The Greek word “the” is often attached to the word “God” or theos, but it does not appear in John 1:1. Hiding behind the Witness rendering of the verse is an unspoken equation: God + “the” (ho theos) = Jehovah, the Almighty God, God - “the” (theos) = a created being with divine qualities. Witnesses claim that the apostle John deliberately omitted a “the” in the final phrase to show the difference between God and the Word. As the New World Translation (p. 775) explains: John's inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or the God, but is the Son of God, and hence is a god. That is why, at John 1:1,2, the apostle refers to God as the God and to the Word or Logos as a god, to show the difference between the Two. Is this the proper translation? No. The equation underlying the Witness rendering breaks down within a few verses. John 1:18 contains theos twice, without “the” either time. According to Watchtower assumptions, we would expect to translate both as “god” or “a god.” Instead, the New World Translation says “God” the first time and “god” the second time. The context overrules their rule. Why did John choose not to put “the” on the word “God”? To show which word was the subject of the sentence. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here. To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit “the” in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.” Author: Dr. John Bechtle

Dr. Bechtle is either a Calvinist, a Trinity teacher, or what Donnie?

But Donnie and Ken, the REAL question is.....are you two just a closet Jehovah Witness?


Take your time boys. He is probably from a denominational background, or a Calvinist, or with Trinity background. One thing I know is this. Donnie, he put your work to and end. You are the ONE who has not been truthful.
. . . . . . . .
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

January 16th, 2017, 2:20 pm #33

Donnie, staying up until 3:23 AM to mock Jesus with your pictures only shows your insecurity...and your obsession. They won't change the fact that Jesus is God.
Quote
Share

Sarge
Sarge

January 16th, 2017, 5:57 pm #34



I too was shocked when Donnie posted a picture of Jesus. That was a first for Donnie!

Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 16th, 2017, 6:08 pm #35

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Sarge, you may not be that observant.

Did you not notice the other picture? 1+1+1 = 1

There may be a second, a third (and more) coming....[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

January 16th, 2017, 6:33 pm #36

Donnie apparently feels that posting controversial and irreverent pictures will induce people to espouse his peculiar and often-controversial theology. Instead, such pictures merely confirm his insecurity and desperation all the more.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 16th, 2017, 7:00 pm #37

Donnie, staying up until 3:23 AM to mock Jesus with your pictures only shows your insecurity...and your obsession. They won't change the fact that Jesus is God.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill,

I was only illustrating the Pope's [with his followers] concept of the Roman Catholic Church Trinity dogma. Admit it: The picture clarifies "your fact that 'Jesus is God'" more than "a thousand words" can.

Here are some of the many differences between man's dogma and the Scripture:

Dogma: God came to earth to become flesh (Pope).
Scripture: God sent His only begotten Son to earth (John 3:16).

Dogma: Jesus is God (Pope).
Scripture: Jesus is THE SON OF GOD [numerous passages].

Dogma: The Father is God; the Son of God is God; the Holy Spirit is God (Pope).
Scripture: There is only one true God the Father (John 6:27; I Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1,3; Eph. 6:23; Phil 2:11; I Thess. 1:1; II Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; I Peter 1:2; II Peter 1:17; II John 1:3; Jude 1:1; etc.).[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 16th, 2017, 7:14 pm #38

Donnie apparently feels that posting controversial and irreverent pictures will induce people to espouse his peculiar and often-controversial theology. Instead, such pictures merely confirm his insecurity and desperation all the more.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks, Bill, Doctor of Psychoanalysis.

The Trinity Dogma has been controversial since the Council of Nicea with Emperor Constantine presiding officially approved it (ca. 4th century). With the aid of translators centuries LATER.

Your diagnosis is wrong. I am very secure about what the Scripture has taught me -- that there is only one true God, the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ cried and said to his Father and his God: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Remember?[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

January 16th, 2017, 7:16 pm #39

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill,

I was only illustrating the Pope's [with his followers] concept of the Roman Catholic Church Trinity dogma. Admit it: The picture clarifies "your fact that 'Jesus is God'" more than "a thousand words" can.

Here are some of the many differences between man's dogma and the Scripture:

Dogma: God came to earth to become flesh (Pope).
Scripture: God sent His only begotten Son to earth (John 3:16).

Dogma: Jesus is God (Pope).
Scripture: Jesus is THE SON OF GOD [numerous passages].

Dogma: The Father is God; the Son of God is God; the Holy Spirit is God (Pope).
Scripture: There is only one true God the Father (John 6:27; I Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1,3; Eph. 6:23; Phil 2:11; I Thess. 1:1; II Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; I Peter 1:2; II Peter 1:17; II John 1:3; Jude 1:1; etc.).[/color]
Is it odd that virtually no one, especially the Trinitarians, makes the point that Jesus is fully human? Check the early creeds!
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 16th, 2017, 7:42 pm #40

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Here are passages to consider:
[/color]
John.7[42] Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Rom.1[3] Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

2Tim.2[8] Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Was "the true God the Father" of the seed of David?

Was God born "in a manger" (Luke 2:7,12,16)?

Did God increase "in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2:52)?[/color]
Quote
Like
Share