Jesus pierced, YHWH pierced.

So when in your view was Jesus created? Did it start Bethlehem around 2-5 BC, or what? Was he Michael the Archangel that was incarnate? Explain his pre-existence to Bethlehem, if any.

Doesn't matter. What I want to know is if you agree with what I said.

Do you believe Jesus can be both God, who has no beginning and no end, and a begotten Son, at the same time, with both statements being true?
 
You seem to consider 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:3 to be your best proofs of Jesus being God when it can easily be proven that both of those verses are talking about two separate persons with one being God and the other being Jesus.
The proof is in the pudding. I posted Greek grammatical rules, and how they apply to these verses and other versus that carry the same rule. This applies to the ancient manuscripts from which we translate from .
If you have something that you believe counters these rules please post them. Otherwise, the rules stands. The verses speak of one person.
I can easily dig up dozens of verses that show God and Jesus are separate. One is called God and the other isn't.
No one here was debating whether or not Jesus is separate from God. Fits well within the trinitarian doctrine. That is what we believe and teach.
 
Doesn't matter. What I want to know is if you agree with what I said.

Do you believe Jesus can be both God, who has no beginning and no end, and a begotten Son, at the same time, with both statements being true?

It doesn't matter? Really? It is important to address the pre-existence of Christ prior to Bethlehem. It's very relevant to the scriptures we are discussing. Is that a problem for you, or can you just answer the simple question?

You ask whether I believe that Jesus is both God (no beginning) and a begotten Son (at the same time). Yes, absolutely. God created us with the ability to believe more than one fact can be true at the same time. Not everything in heaven and earth has to be like a light switch.

I know where you are going with that, but the body-centric view of God that you have is not permitting you to see a rational basis for both being simultaneously true. You have a corrupted foundation knowledge of the nature of God and until that is corrected Biblically and accepted you won't be able to conceive of it any more than someone in the ghetto of Chicago conceiving of a peaceful weekend in their neighborhood.
 
Peter believed Jesus was a man, the Messiah, the Son of God, his Lord, but God is the Father. You would have to ignore 99.9% of what Peter said to falsely represent him the way you're doing. 2 Peter 1:1 is about two different persons.

On the point of Jesus' identity, Paul was in agreement with Peter as well. You would have to ignore 99.9% of what Paul said to falsely represent him the way you're doing.

Based on the two verses you supplied, your evidence is circumstantial. You're capitalizing on the grammar the English translators used, but their intention obviously wasn't to suddenly make Jesus God then suddenly switch back to Jesus not being God in the rest of their writings. You're misunderstanding it.


How do you get one person out of these verses?

1 Corinthians 11
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Acts 2
22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.

Mark 12
29Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
NO amount of weaseling can hide the fact that 2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:12 concerns ONE Person.
BTW since Jesus Christ is The ONE Lord, He is obviously The Lord God of Mark 12:29.
 
The proof is in the pudding. I posted Greek grammatical rules, and how they apply to these verses and other versus that carry the same rule. This applies to the ancient manuscripts from which we translate from .
If you have something that you believe counters these rules please post them. Otherwise, the rules stands. The verses speak of one person.

No one here was debating whether or not Jesus is separate from God. Fits well within the trinitarian doctrine. That is what we believe and teach.

The Bible was translated into English by professionals who followed the rules. What they produced in English varies depending on version and translation because that’s the nature of translating a language. They have to translate based on an in-depth understanding of their culture, their language, while attempting to create a cohesive text free from contradictions that capture the author's intended message.

On the matter of God, one would refer to how God revealed Himself in the Old Testament in order to accurately interpret the New Testament.

First off, there is no Trinity in the Old Testament. There isn't even a point of reference for it as Jesus confirmed in Mark 12:29-30.

In the Old Testament God, who cannot lie, is identified like this:

Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that He should lie,
or a son of man, that He should change His mind.
Does He speak and not act?
Does He promise and not fulfill?

Deuteronomy 4
35You were shown these things so that you would know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides Him.

Deuteronomy 6
4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One.

Jeremiah 10
10But the LORD is the true God;
He is the living God and eternal King.
The earth quakes at His wrath,
and the nations cannot endure His indignation.

Malachi 2
10Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why then do we break faith with one another so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?

If you can't accept this fundamental truth, you have completely missed the point. You don't know who God is; I am sure.
 
The Bible was translated into English by professionals who followed the rules. What they produced in English varies depending on version and translation because that’s the nature of translating a language. They have to translate based on an in-depth understanding of their culture, their language, while attempting to create a cohesive text free from contradictions that capture the author's intended message.

On the matter of God, one would refer to how God revealed Himself in the Old Testament in order to accurately interpret the New Testament.

First off, there is no Trinity in the Old Testament. There isn't even a point of reference for it as Jesus confirmed in Mark 12:29-30.

In the Old Testament God, who cannot lie, is identified like this:

Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that He should lie,
or a son of man, that He should change His mind.
Does He speak and not act?
Does He promise and not fulfill?

Deuteronomy 4
35You were shown these things so that you would know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides Him.

Deuteronomy 6
4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One.

Jeremiah 10
10But the LORD is the true God;
He is the living God and eternal King.
The earth quakes at His wrath,
and the nations cannot endure His indignation.

Malachi 2
10Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why then do we break faith with one another so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?

If you can't accept this fundamental truth, you have completely missed the point. You don't know who God is; I am sure.

Crickets from you on my last post. You can run but you can't hide from the Truth. Ironically you quote Jeremiah 10:10 and call God the "eternal" king.

That's the same Hebrew word that refers to Jesus in Micah 5:2

You could have picked a translation that didn't use the word "eternal". Why didn't you? Because you sift the word for whatever supports your narrative. You are the Adam Schiff of theology.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter? Really? It is important to address the pre-existence of Christ prior to Bethlehem. It's very relevant to the scriptures we are discussing. Is that a problem for you, or can you just answer the simple question?
It can be easily answered and I have answered it.

You ask whether I believe that Jesus is both God (no beginning) and a begotten Son (at the same time). Yes, absolutely. God created us with the ability to believe more than one fact can be true at the same time. Not everything in heaven and earth has to be like a light switch.

That's called cognitive dissonance and it confuses the very people who believe in it as well as seekers. My God is not the author of confusion.

I know where you are going with that, but the body-centric view of God that you have is not permitting you to see a rational basis for both being simultaneously true. You have a corrupted foundation knowledge of the nature of God and until that is corrected Biblically and accepted you won't be able to conceive of it any more than someone in the ghetto of Chicago conceiving of a peaceful weekend in their neighborhood.
If you insist on believing God can simultaneously believe God is both eternal from everlasting and a begotten Son at the exact same time then you must also accept God is eternal, having no beginning or end, but also was created:

Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Colossians 1
18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Revelation 3
14“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.
 
NO amount of weaseling can hide the fact that 2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:12 concerns ONE Person.
BTW since Jesus Christ is The ONE Lord, He is obviously The Lord God of Mark 12:29.

I take it English isn't your first language then. I see no other reason for your profound lack of understanding of this. I can teach English as a second language so if you ever want help let me know.
 
It can be easily answered and I have answered it.



That's called cognitive dissonance and it confuses the very people who believe in it as well as seekers. My God is not the author of confusion.


If you insist on believing God can simultaneously believe God is both eternal from everlasting and a begotten Son at the exact same time then you must also accept God is eternal, having no beginning or end, but also was created:

Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Colossians 1
18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Revelation 3
14“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.
Again you post scriptures about the humanity of Christ. There you go again. I too agree that Jesus is a man. What you need to do is speak consistently and credibly to scriptures like Micah 5:2 and why you change word definitions and refuse to answer about the pre-existence of Christ.

Then you quote Jeremiah 10:10 and use the same Hebrew word for "eternal", but magically it doesn't mean that or anything in Micah 5:2.
 
Doesn't matter. What I want to know is if you agree with what I said.

Do you believe Jesus can be both God, who has no beginning and no end, and a begotten Son, at the same time, with both statements being true?
In your attempt to establish that Jesus did not have an equally eternal existence with the Father as God you have erroneously defined “only begotten” as “conceived ” vs. “highly favored”. "Only" begotten translates from monogenes.


μονογενής [monogenes /mon•og•en•ace/] translates as “only begotten” six times, “only” twice, and “only child” once. 1 single of its kind, only. 1a used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents). 1b used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God.{Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}

μονογενής (monogenēs), ές (es): adj.; unique, only, one and only, i.e., one of a kind: (many versions) only begotten {Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains}

μονογενής, unique: {Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains:}

Used in the following verses.

Jn 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Lk 7:12 And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the city was with her.

Lk 8:42 for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age, and she was dying.

Lk 9:38 Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, “Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child.

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,


“Begotten” denotes unique, blessed, and favored in relation to their parents. It does not at all mean conceived. This is evident by Heb 11:17. Most know that Abraham fathered Ismael and Isaac, but he also fathered six other sons evident by the following verses.

Ge 25:1-2Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.

1 Ch 1:32 Now the sons born to Keturah, Abraham’s concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah…

We conclude from scripture that Abraham had eight sons, therefore one has to ask why did the author of Hebrews identify Isaac as Abrahams only begotten son if the meaning of begotten is to conceive or father children? John’s word marks the relation to the Father as unique, stating the fact in itself. Μονογενής ‘only begotten’ distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not ‘become’ (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but ‘was’ (ἦν) such in the beginning with God.



The confusion lies in the translation, where the translated words are so similar that one naturally assumes that it is the same word in different forms.

γεννάω [gennao] translates as “begat” 49 times, “be born” 39 times, “bear” twice, “gender” twice, “bring forth” once, “be delivered” once, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 of men who fathered children. 1a to be born. 1b to be begotten. 1b1 of women giving birth to children. {Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}



“Gennao” is translated as “begot” in the opening of Matthew where the lineage of Jesus through Joseph is recorded. It is also used in Hebrews 1:5 and translated as “begotten”, this is a hard verse to reconcile with the rest of Hebrews especially the first chapter where the author is establishing the eternal deity of Jesus. There are different schools of thought on this, some say begotten refers to His birth, His resurrection or His ascension.



I believe Paul wrote Hebrews, so looking into other writings of Paul we find in Acts 13:28, Paul quoting Psalms in reference to the resurrection, and not the incarnation, therefore Heb 1:5 does not undermine the eternal deity of Jesus Christ.



I believe the erroneous definition given to “only begotten” is no accident. Any first year seminary student would have figured it out.
The Bible was translated into English by professionals who followed the rules. What they produced in English varies depending on version and translation because that’s the nature of translating a language. They have to translate based on an in-depth understanding of their culture, their language, while attempting to create a cohesive text free from contradictions that capture the author's intended message.

On the matter of God, one would refer to how God revealed Himself in the Old Testament in order to accurately interpret the New Testament.

First off, there is no Trinity in the Old Testament. There isn't even a point of reference for it as Jesus confirmed in Mark 12:29-30.

In the Old Testament God, who cannot lie, is identified like this:

Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that He should lie,
or a son of man, that He should change His mind.
Does He speak and not act?
Does He promise and not fulfill?

Deuteronomy 4
35You were shown these things so that you would know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides Him.

Deuteronomy 6
4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One.

Jeremiah 10
10But the LORD is the true God;
He is the living God and eternal King.
The earth quakes at His wrath,
and the nations cannot endure His indignation.

Malachi 2
10Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why then do we break faith with one another so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?

If you can't accept this fundamental truth, you have completely missed the point. You don't know who God is; I am sure.
We can file this under the fallacy of appealing to anything that sticks.
Why are you dancing around the topic. The topic is Titus 2:13, 2 Pe 1:1 and John 20:28. Prove my point false using the original language and grammatical rules. It should be easy for you. Just look at the back of your hand. Otherwise it stands.
Plus all that you posted above agrees with the Trinity.
And it a real bad idea to argue that the Trinity is not found in the Bible, when the word Bible is not found in the Bible.
 
Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
This is just bad. Are you using antiquated JW material?

First born is position of inheritance, entire creation is pictured as the state to which the Son is primary heir. In ancient times firstborn was the son of the family who was in preeminent position regardless of birth order.

Ps. 89:20-27 . David is made first born, compare to 1 Sam 16:11-13 where we read that David is the youngest of Jesse's sons.

Gen 41:50-51. Joseph son Ephraim was born after Manaseh Joseph's firstborn. Compare to Jeremiah 31:9 where God makes Ephraim firstborn.

Firstborn = “prototokos” from root “protos” = first in time, first in rank, influence, honor, chief, principal, not first made. Jesus is supreme over all things, then all things belong to Him. If made, then, should be “firstborn of YHWH”, or “creation’s firstborn”, not “firstborn of creation”.

If to parallel “firstborn of man” with “firstborn of creation”, then creation parented Jesus, contradicting vs. 16 where Christ produces creation, not the other way around.

1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

If Paul wanted to call Jesus first created he should’ve used “protoktisis” instead of “prototokos.”

Grammatically you are also wrong.
Genitive = The genitive normally marks a noun as the source or possessor of something, or refers to the kind of relationship that noun has to another noun. It is typically expressed in English by the preposition “of”. For example “blood of Christ,” Christ is the genitive noun which describes possession. The genitive case is also used for the objects of some prepositions.

Please indicate which word in the verse is the genitive noun. Could it be God?

Problem ‘firstborn’ is not genitive in Col 1:15, it is adjective, nominative, singular, and masculine.

First born is nominative = renames the noun vs genitive = which restricts a noun by means of a specific characterization.

First born is position of inheritance, entire creation is pictured as the state to which the Son is primary heir. In ancient times firstborn was the son of the family who was in preeminent position regardless of birth order.



18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
You would need to explain this one.
Revelation 3
14“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

Beginning is translated from the Greek word “arche.”
In this verse Jesus refers to himself as the beginning of the creation of God. Beginning is translated from the Greek word “arche.” Arche means “chief in various applications of order, time, place, and rank. It also implies “beginning, corner, magistrate, power, principality, principle and rule.” When applied, it implies “the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause.” {Strong’s Dictionary of Bible Words}.

From "arche" we derive such words as architect, archbishop, arch angel, archduke, and archpriest. So when used in Revelation 3:14 Jesus is stating that he is God, the point of origin, the active cause that brought creation into existence.
 
Deuteronomy 6
4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One.
  • SHEMA
  • Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!”
  • This is part of the Shema, which was recited by the Jews twice a day, one in the morning and once in the evening. This confession of monotheism does not preclude the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. God is in plural form “Elohim” and implies the Trinity and “one” “ehad” implies unity.
  • “Ehad” means a united one; Adam and Eve were one “ehad” flesh. Our church is one “ehad” church.
  • If Moses wanted to state that God is a singular God he would of used “yahid” which means singular one as in one chair, or one table.
  • The Jews of the Old Testament were reciting their creed which spoke volumes of the Trinity.
  • “Hear, O Israel: The Lord {YHWH] our God [ELOHIM], the Lord is one[EHAD]!”
  • “Hear, O Israel: The Lord [YHWH our God [ELOHIM = PLURAL FORM], the Lord is one[EHAD =UNITED ONE] !”
 
Greetings again Towerwatchman,
God is in plural form “Elohim” and implies the Trinity and “one” “ehad” implies unity.
Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV): Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (Elohim) is one LORD (Yahweh):
"Elohim" does not imply the Trinity as Elohim is used for the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and is also used for Angels and Judges who represent Yahweh. "One Yahweh", Hebrew "echad" teaches that God is One in distinction to the many gods of the nations.

259 אֶחָד [ʾechad /ekh·awd/] adj. A numeral from 258; 951 occurrences; AV translates as “one” 687 times, “first” 36 times, “another” 35 times, “other” 30 times, “any” 18 times, “once” 13 times, “eleven + 6240” 13 times, “every” 10 times, “certain” nine times, “an” seven times, “some” seven times, and translated miscellaneously 86 times. 1 one (number). 1A one (number). 1B each, every. 1C a certain. 1D an (indefinite article). 1E only, once, once for all. 1F one … another, the one … the other, one after another, one by one. 1G first. 1H eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal).
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
In your attempt to establish that Jesus did not have an equally eternal existence with the Father as God you have erroneously defined “only begotten” as “conceived ” vs. “highly favored”. "Only" begotten translates from monogenes.
No I didn't. The word begotten refers to offspring because that's what it means. Don't fiddle with definitions.


μονογενής [monogenes /mon•og•en•ace/] translates as “only begotten” six times, “only” twice, and “only child” once. 1 single of its kind, only. 1a used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents). 1b used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God.{Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}

μονογενής (monogenēs), ές (es): adj.; unique, only, one and only, i.e., one of a kind: (many versions) only begotten {Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains}

μονογενής, unique: {Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains:}

Used in the following verses.

Jn 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Lk 7:12 And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the city was with her.

Lk 8:42 for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age, and she was dying.

Lk 9:38 Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, “Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child.

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
That's great, thank you. Each time the word begotten refers to offspring, that is being born. It's a specific day someone was born, in accordance with being created, whether spiritually or physically. The point was someone was born and that's a starting point.
“Begotten” denotes unique, blessed, and favored in relation to their parents. It does not at all mean conceived. This is evident by Heb 11:17. Most know that Abraham fathered Ismael and Isaac, but he also fathered six other sons evident by the following verses.

Ge 25:1-2Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.

1 Ch 1:32 Now the sons born to Keturah, Abraham’s concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah…

We conclude from scripture that Abraham had eight sons, therefore one has to ask why did the author of Hebrews identify Isaac as Abrahams only begotten son if the meaning of begotten is to conceive or father children? John’s word marks the relation to the Father as unique, stating the fact in itself. Μονογενής ‘only begotten’ distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not ‘become’ (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but ‘was’ (ἦν) such in the beginning with God.
Yes, Abraham begot sons literally. The way it is used in the Bible and real life refers to offspring. The concept doesn't suddenly change when applied to Jesus. This isn't supposed to be complicated as the Bible quite clearly refers to Jesus as having a beginning point.

The confusion lies in the translation, where the translated words are so similar that one naturally assumes that it is the same word in different forms.

γεννάω [gennao] translates as “begat” 49 times, “be born” 39 times, “bear” twice, “gender” twice, “bring forth” once, “be delivered” once, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 of men who fathered children. 1a to be born. 1b to be begotten. 1b1 of women giving birth to children. {Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}
No confusion; not on my part anyway. The translators translated it correctly.

“Gennao” is translated as “begot” in the opening of Matthew where the lineage of Jesus through Joseph is recorded. It is also used in Hebrews 1:5 and translated as “begotten”, this is a hard verse to reconcile with the rest of Hebrews especially the first chapter where the author is establishing the eternal deity of Jesus. There are different schools of thought on this, some say begotten refers to His birth, His resurrection or His ascension.



I believe Paul wrote Hebrews, so looking into other writings of Paul we find in Acts 13:28, Paul quoting Psalms in reference to the resurrection, and not the incarnation, therefore Heb 1:5 does not undermine the eternal deity of Jesus Christ.

You did a word study and didn't come to the conclusion begotten means offspring?

I believe the erroneous definition given to “only begotten” is no accident. Any first year seminary student would have figured it out.

We can file this under the fallacy of appealing to anything that sticks.
Why are you dancing around the topic. The topic is Titus 2:13, 2 Pe 1:1 and John 20:28. Prove my point false using the original language and grammatical rules. It should be easy for you. Just look at the back of your hand. Otherwise it stands.
Plus all that you posted above agrees with the Trinity.
And it a real bad idea to argue that the Trinity is not found in the Bible, when the word Bible is not found in the Bible.
This isn't a fallacy. The word begotten refers to offspring.

Rather than produce a big list, let's just look at one. The word son itself refers to being a descendent.

John 3
18Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
 
Last edited:
This is just bad. Are you using antiquated JW material?

First born is position of inheritance, entire creation is pictured as the state to which the Son is primary heir. In ancient times firstborn was the son of the family who was in preeminent position regardless of birth order.

Ps. 89:20-27 . David is made first born, compare to 1 Sam 16:11-13 where we read that David is the youngest of Jesse's sons.

Gen 41:50-51. Joseph son Ephraim was born after Manaseh Joseph's firstborn. Compare to Jeremiah 31:9 where God makes Ephraim firstborn.

Firstborn = “prototokos” from root “protos” = first in time, first in rank, influence, honor, chief, principal, not first made. Jesus is supreme over all things, then all things belong to Him. If made, then, should be “firstborn of YHWH”, or “creation’s firstborn”, not “firstborn of creation”.

If to parallel “firstborn of man” with “firstborn of creation”, then creation parented Jesus, contradicting vs. 16 where Christ produces creation, not the other way around.

1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

If Paul wanted to call Jesus first created he should’ve used “protoktisis” instead of “prototokos.”

Grammatically you are also wrong.
Genitive = The genitive normally marks a noun as the source or possessor of something, or refers to the kind of relationship that noun has to another noun. It is typically expressed in English by the preposition “of”. For example “blood of Christ,” Christ is the genitive noun which describes possession. The genitive case is also used for the objects of some prepositions.

Please indicate which word in the verse is the genitive noun. Could it be God?

Problem ‘firstborn’ is not genitive in Col 1:15, it is adjective, nominative, singular, and masculine.

First born is nominative = renames the noun vs genitive = which restricts a noun by means of a specific characterization.

First born is position of inheritance, entire creation is pictured as the state to which the Son is primary heir. In ancient times firstborn was the son of the family who was in preeminent position regardless of birth order.




You would need to explain this one.


Beginning is translated from the Greek word “arche.”
In this verse Jesus refers to himself as the beginning of the creation of God. Beginning is translated from the Greek word “arche.” Arche means “chief in various applications of order, time, place, and rank. It also implies “beginning, corner, magistrate, power, principality, principle and rule.” When applied, it implies “the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause.” {Strong’s Dictionary of Bible Words}.

From "arche" we derive such words as architect, archbishop, arch angel, archduke, and archpriest. So when used in Revelation 3:14 Jesus is stating that he is God, the point of origin, the active cause that brought creation into existence.

You're attempting to refute the Bible, not me, and I reject all of what you said completely. I'll just stick with what the Bible says. Your willingness to distort words is troubling to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Again you post scriptures about the humanity of Christ. There you go again. I too agree that Jesus is a man. What you need to do is speak consistently and credibly to scriptures like Micah 5:2 and why you change word definitions and refuse to answer about the pre-existence of Christ.

Then you quote Jeremiah 10:10 and use the same Hebrew word for "eternal", but magically it doesn't mean that or anything in Micah 5:2.

Don't misunderstand, I talk about what I want and stear the conversation where I want to it go. While you're free to ask questions, I am under no obligation to go down a rabbit hole with you. The same goes to you. Let's just talk about what we want to talk about.

I'm quoting verses that debunk Jesus as being God and refute Trinitarianism and Binatarianism.
 
Greetings again Towerwatchman,

Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV): Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (Elohim) is one LORD (Yahweh):
"Elohim" does not imply the Trinity as Elohim is used for the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and is also used for Angels and Judges who represent Yahweh. "One Yahweh", Hebrew "echad" teaches that God is One in distinction to the many gods of the nations.

259 אֶחָד [ʾechad /ekh·awd/] adj. A numeral from 258; 951 occurrences; AV translates as “one” 687 times, “first” 36 times, “another” 35 times, “other” 30 times, “any” 18 times, “once” 13 times, “eleven + 6240” 13 times, “every” 10 times, “certain” nine times, “an” seven times, “some” seven times, and translated miscellaneously 86 times. 1 one (number). 1A one (number). 1B each, every. 1C a certain. 1D an (indefinite article). 1E only, once, once for all. 1F one … another, the one … the other, one after another, one by one. 1G first. 1H eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal).
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon.

Kind regards
Trevor

Elohim is singular when it carries a singular verb. Plural when it carries a plural verb.
Gen 1:26 Elohim carries a plural verb, therefore is plural. God in plural form said X. That is the Trinity discussing amongst itself.
Vs 27 Elohim is singular.
Conclusion, one of the members of the trinity in verse 26, created in verse 27

The Shema alone would not be strong evidence for the Trinity, but alongside other evidence it makes a strong argument for the existence of the Trinity vs it’s non existence.
 
Back
Top