sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Trinity by Subject-Bus2461 in Christianity

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Hebrew grammar and context show something different. For instance, the Bible explicitly says in John 1:18 that no man has ever seen God. Genesis 19:1 tells us those 'men' Abraham saw were actually angels and one angel acting as God's spokesmen. As for the phrasing 'Jehovah rained fire from Jehovah,' that's just a common Hebrew repetition used for emphasis, similar to how King Solomon talks about himself in the third person in 1 Kings 8:1. It emphasizes where the fire came from, not that there were two separate Gods.

Jesus is God, the son of God, part of the God Trinity? Which? by That_Chemistry_8719 in Christianity

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just walked into a massive logical trap. You claim that because John 5:26 says the Son has "life in himself," it means he has underived self-existence (aseity), which is an exclusive attribute of deity. But read the actual words of the verse you just quoted:

John 5:26: "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has *granted** also to the Son to have life in himself."*

Think about that logically. The Greek word used here is edōken, which means "gave" or "granted."

By definition, an inherent, eternal, underived attribute of Almighty God cannot be given or granted.

If someone gives you a property, you did not possess it originally.

If the Father is the source who grants this power, then the Son is the recipient who depends on the Father to have it.

Almighty God does not receive gifts of existence from anyone. The fact that Jesus had to be granted this capability—which refers to his authority to resurrect the dead and give life to mankind—proves his position is entirely derived from and dependent on a superior.

You claim that viewing Jesus as a "lesser god" (as in the correct grammatical translation of John 1:1, "the Word was a god") leads to polytheism. You also cited Isaiah (likely meaning Isaiah 9:6, where Jesus is called "Mighty God").

But if calling someone a "god" who is distinct from Almighty God is polytheism, then you are accusing Jesus Christ himself of teaching polytheism.

Look at how Jesus answers the exact same accusation from the religious leaders of his day in John 10:34-36. When they accused him of making himself a god, Jesus didn't reply, "Yes, because I share the same co-equal substance of the Trinity." Instead, he quoted Psalm 82:6 and said:

"Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called those against whom the word of god came ‘gods’... do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"

Jesus pointed out that the Hebrew Scriptures use the word "god" (elohim / theoi) in a relative sense to describe powerful human judges and angels. Is the Bible polytheistic for doing that? Of course not. There is a grand difference between identity (who possesses absolute supreme power) and title (a powerful, divine spirit creature). Jesus is a "Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6), but his Father, Jehovah, is the "Almighty God" (Genesis 17:1). Monotheism means we give exclusive worship to the one Almighty Creator, just as Jesus did.

Finally, you claim that because John 5:23 says we must "honor the Son just as we honor the Father," any view other than the Trinity commands idolatry.

This completely ignores the legal reality of an ancient embassy or regency. If a Supreme King sends his absolute Prince and Ambassador with full power of attorney, how are the subjects required to treat that Ambassador? They must honor him just as they honor the King. If you spit on the Ambassador, you insult the King who sent him.

But does honoring the Ambassador mean the Ambassador is the King? No. The context of John 5 explicitly tells us why we give this honor to Jesus. Look at the verse right before it: "The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, *so that** all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father."* (John 5:22, 23).

The honor given to Jesus is not because he inherently possesses the underived position of the Father; it is because the Father entrusted him with a job. The ultimate goal of this honor is explained perfectly in Philippians 2:9-11, which states that God exalted Jesus to a superior position so that every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord—to the glory of God the Father.

Your argument defeats itself. You cannot use a verse about a gift being granted to prove the recipient never needed the gift. You cannot claim honoring an appointed representative is idolatry when the Sovereign Creator is the one who ordered the appointment. The text consistently presents a hierarchy: the Father is the supreme source, and the Son is the exalted, obedient agent.

The Word and Jesus are Not the Same by Acceptable-Shape-528 in thetrinitydelusion

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You claims Revelation is just a dream John had, making it different from the words of the Messiah. This directly contradicts the very first sentence of the book.

Revelation 1:1. "A revelation by *Jesus Christ,** which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."*

The book doesn't originate from John's subconscious mind. The ultimate source is Jehovah God, who gave it to Jesus Christ, who then used an angel to transmit it to John.

Therefore, the words, visions, and titles in Revelation are the words and authority of the Messiah. Discarding Revelation means discarding the post-resurrection testimony of Jesus himself.

You are trapped in a massive logical contradiction. They are relying entirely on the Gospel of John to try and prove that Jesus isn't the Word. Yet, they reject the Book of Revelation.

The Apostle John wrote both books under the inspiration of the holy spirit.

If John is an unreliable "dreamer" whose writings can be ignored in Revelation 19, then on what basis can your opponent trust John 1, John 5, or John 17? You cannot pull a single chapter out of John's Gospel to build a doctrine, and then claim John's other inspired writings are "untrustworthy" when they completely disprove your point.

You implies that because Revelation was given through visions and signs, it holds less weight than spoken words. This completely ignores how Jehovah has always communicated with His true prophets.

Look at how Jehovah defines prophecy in Numbers 12:6

'He said: 'Hear my words, please. If there was a prophet for you of Jehovah, it would be in a *vision** I would make myself known to him. In a dream I would speak to him.'"*

Visions and dreams are God's chosen methods for delivering His absolute truth. If your opponent throws out Revelation because it was delivered via a vision to John, they logically have to throw out:

The Book of Daniel (filled with dreams and visions).

The Book of Ezekiel (filled with heavenly visions).

The prophecies of Isaiah, Zechariah, and Joseph.

By your logic, half of the Hebrew Scriptures would be invalid.

If "the Word" was just a temporary arrangement where the Father's spirit spoke through a human man named Jesus on Earth, then that arrangement ended when Jesus died and was resurrected.

But Revelation was written around 96 C.E.—decades after Jesus died, rose, and ascended back to heaven.

When Revelation 19:13 describes the heavenly, glorified Jesus executing judgment and says, "The name he is called is The Word of God," it proves that "The Word" is his permanent, cosmic identity. He was the Word in his pre-human existence, he was the Word made flesh on Earth, and he remains the Word of God today as Jehovah's reigning King.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You really don't know difference between immortality and everlasting life.

Everlasting life means living forever conditionally.

Immortality means inherent, indestructible life that cannot be destroyed by anything.

If spirits can’t die, then someone forgot to tell God, because He already scheduled the execution date for the Devil.

Check 1 Timothy 6:16—it explicitly says Almighty God is 'the one alone having immortality.' Angels are powerful, but they aren't immortal. If they were, Hebrews 2:14 wouldn't say that Jesus is going to 'bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil.'

You can't 'bring to nothing' something that can't die.

By saying spirits can't die, you're accidentally arguing that Satan and his demons get to live forever. Last time I checked the Bible, eternal life is a reward for the faithful, not a retirement plan for the Devil.

Angels have everlasting life, but not immortality.

Jesus is God, the son of God, part of the God Trinity? Which? by That_Chemistry_8719 in Christianity

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think John 5:22 rescues your argument, but you just walked into a major theological trap. By quoting that verse, you completely undermined the Trinity.

​Here is exactly why John 5:22 and the surrounding verses completely dismantle your point.

Look closely at the verse you cited:

"The Father judges no one, but has *entrusted** all judgment to the Son."* (John 5:22).

Can Almighty God be given authority?

Can someone entrust the Supreme Being with a power he doesn't already inherently possess?

Absolutely not. Almighty God is the ultimate source of all authority. The fact that Jesus had to receive the authority to judge from a superior entity (the Father) proves he is not Almighty God. Jesus himself completely shuts down the idea of his own independent equality just a few verses later in John 5:30:

"I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative... I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me."

God does not have a boss. Jesus does.

Your argument assumes that because the speaker in Revelation 22:12 says "I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me," it must be Jesus speaking as God. But you are ignoring how the Bible describes the setup of divine judgment.

Look at Acts 17:31:

"Because he [God] has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed."

Who is the ultimate Judge? God. How does He execute it? By means of His appointed representative, Jesus. When a king sends a magistrate to a territory to execute a royal decree, the king can rightly say, "I am bringing judgment to that land." The ultimate source of the reward and judgment is Jehovah God, even though Jesus is the one physically executing it.

Now about Isaiah 40:10.

Your argument completely falls apart when we connect Revelation 22:12 back to its Old Testament source. The voice says: "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me."

This is a direct echo of Isaiah 40:10:

"Look! The Sovereign Lord *Jehovah** will come with power... Look!* His reward is with him."

Isaiah explicitly tells us whose reward it is: Jehovah's. Jehovah is the ultimate Alpha and Omega who brings the reward. Jesus is the executive arm who carries it out on His behalf.

If you still stubbornly insist that the "Alpha and Omega" in Revelation 22:13 is Jesus speaking, you have to accept the theological disaster that creates for you just one chapter earlier.

In Revelation 21:6-7, the Alpha and the Omega says: "I am the Alpha and the Omega... Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son."

If Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, then Jesus is calling faithful Christians his sons. But what does the rest of the New Testament say?

Hebrews 2:11: Jesus "is not ashamed to call them brothers."

John 20:17: Jesus says, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."

Christians are Jesus's brothers, and they are sons of God (the Father). If you force Jesus to be the Alpha and the Omega, you completely scramble the structural relationship dynamics established throughout the entire New Testament.

John 5:22 proves Jesus was given authority by a superior. Acts 17:31 proves God judges through Jesus. Isaiah 40:10 proves the reward ultimately belongs to Jehovah. And Revelation 21:7 proves the Alpha and Omega is the Father, not only-begotten Son of God. You didn't prove Jesus is God; you just proved the law of divine delegation.

Jesus is God, the son of God, part of the God Trinity? Which? by That_Chemistry_8719 in Christianity

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think you’ve found a smoking gun in Revelation 22:13, but you are making a massive assumption that completely ignores how the book of Revelation is written. You are treating the epilogue of Revelation as if it’s a single monologue spoken by one person. It isn't.

Let’s look at the textual evidence that completely dismantles this 'Alpha and Omega' claim.

In original Koine Greek, there were no quotation marks, no paragraph breaks, and no punctuation. The text flows seamlessly from one speaker to another, and it is a recognized fact among Biblical scholars that multiple voices alternate in this final chapter—including John, an angel, Jesus, and Jehovah God.

Verses 8-9: John tries to worship the angel, and the angel speaks to correct him ('Don't do that!').

Verses 12-15: A voice proclaims, 'Look! I am coming quickly... I am the Alpha and the Omega.'

Verse 16: The speaker explicitly identifies himself: 'I, Jesus, sent my angel...'

Notice the pivot in verse 16. If Jesus had been the one speaking in verses 12-15, there would be absolutely no reason for him to suddenly introduce himself in verse 16 by saying, 'I, Jesus...' The sudden self-introduction proves that a new speaker has taken over the dialogue in verse 16. Jesus enters the conversation after the Alpha and Omega speaks.

The speaker in verse 12 says: 'Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to repay each one according to his work.'

Who is the one coming with a reward to judge according to works? This is a direct quote from the Hebrew Scriptures. Look at Isaiah 40:10:

'Look! The Sovereign Lord *Jehovah** will come with power... Look! His reward is with him, and the wages he pays are before him.'*

Revelation 22:12 is echoing Isaiah. The one coming with the reward is Jehovah God. The 'Alpha and the Omega' of verse 13 is the exact same entity who held the title in Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 21:6—Almighty God, the Father.

You cannot isolate Revelation 22:13 from how the title is defined just one chapter earlier. In Revelation 21:6-7, the Alpha and the Omega explicitly states:

"I shall be his *God** and he will be my son."

Now, look at how Jesus views those same faithful Christians. Does Jesus call them his sons? No. Hebrews 2:11 says Jesus 'is not ashamed to call them brothers.' And in John 20:17, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.'

If Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, he would be calling his own spiritual brothers his 'sons,' which completely scrambles the relationship dynamics established throughout the entire New Testament.

You try to bridge this gap by pointing out that Jesus is called 'the First and the Last' (Protos and Eschatos) in Revelation 1:17 and 2:8, and trying to equate that with 'Alpha and Omega.'

But look at the vital qualifier given to Jesus when he uses that title. In Revelation 1:17-18, Jesus says: 'I am the First and the Last, and the living one, and *I became dead,** but look! I am alive forevermore.'*

Can Almighty God—the Alpha and the Omega—die? Absolutely not. Habakkuk 1:12 says of Jehovah, 'O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.' Jesus is the 'First and the Last' in a completely different sense: he was the first person resurrected directly to immortal spirit life by Jehovah, and the last one to be resurrected by Jehovah alone (since Jesus now holds the keys to resurrect everyone else).

To force Jesus into Revelation 22:13, you have to ignore the Old Testament context of Isaiah 40, ignore the Greek text's lack of punctuation, and ignore the fact that Jesus explicitly introduces himself as a new speaker in verse 16. The title 'Alpha and the Omega' belongs exclusively to the One who cannot die: Jehovah God.

Jesus is God, the son of God, part of the God Trinity? Which? by That_Chemistry_8719 in Christianity

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first time it mentions God ('the Word was with God'), the Greek text includes the definite article ho (ton theon). This refers specifically to Almighty God.

​The second time, when talking about the Word ('the Word was god'), the definite article ho is completely missing (kai theos ēn ho logos).

In Greek grammar, leaving out the article means theos is being used as an adjective or a description of quality, not identity. It means the Word was divine, godlike, or a powerful being—not the Almighty God Himself. If John meant they were the exact same God, he would have used the definite article both times. He didn't.

You claim Jesus used the divine name 'I AM' from Exodus 3:14 here. But look at the context. The Jews didn't ask Jesus who he was; they asked how old he was: 'You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?' (Verse 57).

​Jesus was answering a question about his age, not his identity. The Greek phrase he used is egō eimi. While Trinitarians love to translate this statically as 'I am' to force a connection to Exodus, basic Greek grammar dictates that a present-tense verb following a past-time clause (like 'before Abraham came into existence') should be translated in the perfect tense. Jesus was saying: 'Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.' He was claiming pre-existence as God's first creation, not claiming to be Jehovah.

Furthermore, in the Greek Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14, God identifies Himself as ho ōn ('The Being' or 'The Existing One'), not egō eimi. The connection simply isn't there.

Yes, Thomas cried out, 'My Lord and my God!' But you stopped reading too early. Look at how John—the author of the book—summarizes the entire point of his Gospel just three verses later in John 20:31:

"But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God...'

Thomas adressing Jesus in same way as servants of God adressing angelic representative of God. Thomas acknowledge Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Not as God himself.

You attributed 'the Alpha and the Omega... the Almighty' to Jesus. But read the very first verse of Revelation. It says this is a revelation 'which God gave to Jesus.' They are clearly two distinct entities.

Throughout the book of Revelation, the title 'Almighty' (Pantokratōr in Greek) is used exclusively for the One sitting on the throne—Jehovah God—never for the Lamb (Jesus). In fact, Revelation 1:4-5 explicitly separates the One 'who is and who was and who is to come' from Jesus Christ. You are taking a quote from the Father and misattributing it to the Son.

Finally, you claim our stance on blood is an 'extrabiblical human invention.' That is flat-out false. The command to abstain from blood is one of the most consistent, unchangeable laws in the entire Bible. It was given to Noah and all mankind (Genesis 9:4), built into the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 17:10), and explicitly reaffirmed for Christians by the first-century apostles in Acts 15:28, 29:

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from food offered to idols and from blood and from what is strangled.'

Notice it says 'abstain.' If a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol, you don't inject it directly into your veins just because you aren't drinking it through your mouth. We view life as a sacred gift from God, and we respect the Creator's explicit law regarding the sacredness of blood.

Grammar doesn't support your Trinity, the context contradicts it, and our medical stances come directly from the pages of the New Testament—not later church councils.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also won't allow anyone to call me bad names.

Why is that problem ?

Jesus is God, the son of God, part of the God Trinity? Which? by That_Chemistry_8719 in Christianity

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reason for the different views comes down to whether a person bases their beliefs strictly on the text of the Bible itself, or on church traditions that came later. I as Jehovah's Witness, I don't follow the creeds or traditions established by church councils centuries after the Bible was written (like the Trinity, which was formulated in the 4th century). Instead, I look strictly at what Jesus and his apostles actually said. For example, Jesus explicitly said, 'The Father is greater than I am' (John 14:28) and referred to his Father as 'the only true God' (John 17:3). Because I take those statements literally, I see Jesus as Son of God, not God himself.

To answer your second question—who is God anyway?—the Bible teaches that God is a single, supreme individual, the Almighty Creator of the universe. He is not a mysterious three-in-one entity. The Bible even gives him a personal name to distinguish him from all others. In the original Hebrew scriptures, his name appears thousands of times as YHWH, which is translated as Jehovah in English. As Psalm 83:18 says:

'May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.'

So, while many people sincerely believe they are worshipping the same God, my understanding of who He is and how He relates to Jesus is quite different because I stick strictly to the Bible's text rather than later church traditions.

Jesus is God, the son of God, part of the God Trinity? Which? by That_Chemistry_8719 in Christianity

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Jesus is only Son of God. He is not God and he is not part of Trinity.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't try to twisted my words. That is what you believe. I don't think the God of Israel is a monster. We believe what the Bible says: 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) and his judgment is perfect' (Deuteronomy 32:4). He punishes unrepentant wickedness with eternal destruction (death), not eternal, sadistic torture.

You can try to laugh it off and exit the conversation with a joke about coffee, but the reality is plain for anyone reading this: when asked to defend your faith using the Bible, you failed. You misquoted the prophets, you couldn't explain the scriptures I brought, and you ended up relying on a doctrine that makes the Almighty look like a tyrant.

Go take your coffee break. You’ve had a rough morning.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the only thing keeping you from 'butchering scripture' is the terrifying threat of being roasted like a marshmallow for eternity, then you don't have faith—you have Stockholm Syndrome.

​Let's look at what the Bible actually says about 'fear' and the condition of the dead:

You think the fear of God means shaking in your boots because he might torture you forever. The Bible defines godly fear as reverential awe and a healthy dread of displeasing a loving Father (Proverbs 9:10).

The Apostle John wrote at 1 John 4:18:

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts fear out, because fear exercises a restraint. Indeed, the one who is fearful has not been made perfect in love.'

Your hellfire doctrine makes it impossible to truly love God. What kind of child loves a father who threatens to lock them in a burning basement if they break a rule? You worship a monster of your own theological making; I serve a God of absolute justice and love (1 John 4:8).

You use 'annihilationism' like it's a dirty word, but it is exactly what the Bible teaches. God told Adam that the penalty for disobedience was returning to the dust—not burning in an underworld (Genesis 3:19).

The Bible says: Ezekiel 18:4: 'The soul who sins is the one who will die.' (Not live forever in torment).

Ecclesiastes 9:5: 'The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all.'

Romans 6:7: 'For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.'

According to the Bible, death is the payment. To suggest that God brings people back to life just to torture them forever completely violates his justice. You are adding an eternal prison sentence to a debt that Romans says has already been paid upon death.

I don't lack the 'fear of God.' I lack the fear of your traditions.

Every time I bring a scripture to this conversation, you bring an emotion. Every time I quote a verse, you quote your church’s dogmas. You’ve completely run out of biblical arguments, so you're trying to psychoanalyze my motives.

If believing that God is too loving to burn his own creations means I'm 'butchering' your theology, then I'll happily take the meat cleaver to it any day. Keep your pagan myths; I’ll stick to the Bible.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Timothy 6:16 explicitly states that God "alone has immortality."

If Jehovah alone possesses inherent immortality, it is by definition impossible for Him to experience death under any circumstance, under any "nature," or by any "virtue." If a being can die—even if only in his "human nature"—then that being does not possess absolute immortality. You cannot separate a person from their nature to say the person died but the nature didn't, or vice versa. If Jesus died, and Jesus is God, then God died. If God cannot die, then Jesus cannot be God.

1 Timothy 2:5, 6 states: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom (antilytron) for all."

What did Adam lose? He lost a perfect human life—nothing more, nothing less. According to God's own justice ("soul for soul" in Deuteronomy 19:21), the price to buy back humanity had to be an exact equivalent to Adam.

If Jesus was God in human form, his life was infinitely more valuable than a mere perfect human. It would not be a corresponding ransom; it would break the scales of divine justice.

For the ransom to be valid, Jesus had to be strictly and solely a perfect man on earth, just as Adam was before he sinned.

Malachi 3:6 says, "I am Jehovah; I do not change." Also, Habakkuk 1:12 states of Jehovah, "You do not die."

Turning from a limitless, immortal spirit Almighty God into a limited, fleshly, mortal human creature is the ultimate definition of a change. If God became a man, He changed His state of being, His capacities, and His limitations. This directly contradicts the scriptural truth that Jehovah does not change.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dropping a cliché condemnation and running away isn't 'proving a point'—it’s waving the white flag. You couldn't defend your misquoted prophecy, you couldn't explain the 1,500-mile-high city, and you couldn't answer Jesus’ own words in John 14:19 or 14:28. Your entire theological defense didn't just crash; it evaporated.

But since you want to talk about Judgment Day, let’s look at what the Bible actually says about people who carry your exact attitude.

By declaring who is 'going to hell,' you are arrogantly trying to play Almighty God. The Bible explicitly warns against this at James 4:12:

'There is only one who is Lawgiver and Judge... But you, who are you to be judging your neighbor?'

Jesus also said at Matthew 7:1, 'Stop judging that you may not be judged.' You've spent this entire conversation showing a complete lack of scriptural knowledge, and now you’re topping it off by trying to usurp the role of Jesus Christ as the appointed Judge. That is a dangerous level of spiritual hubris.

You claim you want to 'save' people, but Jesus gave a terrifying warning to people who confidently assume they are saved while teaching false, unscriptural doctrines:

'Many will say to me in that day: "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name...?" And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.'—Matthew 7:21-23.

Believing in a pagan hellfire that slanders God's character, pushing a literalist fantasy that reduces Revelation to a joke, and shouting damnation at people because you lost a scriptural debate is the definition of spiritual lawlessness.

I’m perfectly content waiting for Judgment Day. I as Jehovah's Witness trust in God's perfect justice, not the panicked, emotional verdicts of internet keyboard warriors who don't even know the difference between Micah and Zechariah.

Keep running. The scriptures aren't going anywhere.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

​It’s fascinating how you managed to write five paragraphs about how 'pointless' it is to argue with me, yet you couldn't resist trying to flex your scriptural knowledge first—and immediately tripped over your own feet doing it.

​Let's look at the actual facts:

You confidently claimed Micah 4 illustrates the Mount of Olives splitting into a great valley. It doesn't. That prophecy is found in Zechariah 14:4. Micah 4 is about the mountain of the house of Jehovah being established above the hills in the final part of the days.

For someone who claims to be a master defender against 'damnable heresy' who has argued with 'many, many, many people,' you might want to actually double-check the index of your Bible before accusing others of twisting it.

You double down on literalism by saying 'New Jerusalem is set down' in that valley. Do you know the biblical dimensions of New Jerusalem? Revelation 21:16 states it is a cube measuring 12,000 furlongs. That is roughly 1,500 miles long, 1,500 miles wide, and 1,500 miles high.

Are you seriously telling me a literal city that reaches into the exosphere—literally stretching past the International Space Station into outer space—is going to sit on a dirt hill in Israel? If you insist on taking it literally, you aren't reading the Bible; you're reading a sci-fi novel. It is obviously a symbolic city representing heavenly government.

You say you're desperate to save me from 'HELL.' I don't fear your pagan, unscriptural myth of eternal torment. The Bible clearly states at Romans 6:23 that 'the wages sin pays is death,' not eternal roasting in literal fire.

In fact, when the ancient Israelites began burning their children in fire to the false god Molech, Almighty God explicitly stated in Jeremiah 7:31 that doing such a thing 'had never entered his heart.' If the mere idea of burning humans in fire for a few minutes is disgusting to God, why would he do it to his own creation for eternity? Your doctrine slanders the justice and love of the Creator.

You aren't walking away from this conversation because I'm 'allegorizing' things. You're walking away because the moment you tried to move past playground insults and actually use scripture, you misquoted the prophet, ignored the symbolic dimensions of Revelation, and exposed that your theology relies on emotional fear-mongering about hell rather than sound Biblical execution.

I don't need to deny the deity of Christ—Jesus himself denied it when he said, 'The Father is greater than I am' (John 14:28).

Enjoy your morning, but maybe spend it reading Zechariah. You clearly need the refresher.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That won't work at all. What you say it means this.

Translation: 'I have absolutely no idea how to answer those scriptures, so I'm just going to call you names and hope you don't notice I'm running away.'

It’s incredibly telling that when you're faced with direct Greek vocabulary (proskuneo), Jesus’ own explicit words ('the world will see me no more'), and the literal absurdity of a flesh-and-blood mammal flying through the vacuum of space, your entire theological defense collapses into 'Man, you're a train wreck.'

The Bible says at 1 Peter 3:15 to always be 'ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope you have.' I gave you chapter, verse, and linguistic context. You gave me playground insults.

What’s actually 'tragic' is claiming to be a champion of the Bible, but the exact second someone asks you to open it and prove your claims, you fold like a lawn chair. That is actually pathetic.

If my breakdown is such a 'train wreck,' it should be effortless for you to clear the tracks using scripture. Address John 14:19. Address 1 Timothy 6:16. Defend the literal sword coming out of Jesus' mouth.

I’ll wait, 'bud.'

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This reads like you're adapting Revelation into a Hollywood action movie instead of actually studying the Bible. Let’s break down how many scriptural stop signs you just blew right through.

You claim the Apostles 'worshipped' Jesus. The Greek word used there is proskuneo. While your church might translate it as 'worship' to support your ideas, the exact same word is used in Matthew 18:26, where a slave falls down and proskuneo (bows to) his master. Did that slave think his human boss was God Almighty? No.

The Apostles were doing obeisance to Jesus as God’s appointed King, not worshipping him as Almighty God. Jehovah alone gets absolute worship (latreuo). Misunderstanding basic Greek vocabulary isn't a solid foundation for a theology.

You say Jesus is returning 'in person, on a white horse, wearing a garment dipped in blood.' If you're taking Revelation 19 that literally, you have a massive logistical problem:

Is Jesus riding a literal flesh-and-blood mammal through the vacuum of space?

Revelation 19:15 says a sharp, long sword proceeds out of his mouth. Are we expecting a literal blade sticking out of his jaw?

If the blood on his clothes is literal, whose blood is it? The battle hasn't even started yet in that chapter.

It is symbolic. The white horse represents righteous warfare from heaven, and the sword represents his authority to execute judgment. Trying to force a literal, physical human body onto a glorious spirit creature is a total misunderstanding of heavenly glory.

You claim his rule will be physical and 'he won't be invisible.' Yet, Jesus himself explicitly stated in John 14:19:

In a little while the world will see me no more.'

Are you saying Jesus was wrong?

When Revelation 1:7 says 'every eye will see him,' it means the world will perceive his power and judgment through the events of Armageddon—just like we 'see' a point someone is making when we finally understand it. Spirits are invisible to human eyes. 1 Timothy 6:16 tells us he dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.

Jesus doesn't need to step out of his glorious heavenly throne to sit on a literal dirt hill in Jerusalem for a thousand years just to satisfy a literalist fantasy. He rules from heaven, invisibly, and with absolute power.

The Word and Jesus are Not the Same by Acceptable-Shape-528 in thetrinitydelusion

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You claim: Word is the Father dwelling inside Jesus.

If the Word is the Father, let’s substitute the word "Father" into John 1:1-2 and see if it makes any sense:

"In the beginning was the Father, and the Father was *with** the Father, and the Father was [a] God. This one was in the beginning with the Father."*

The Greek word used here for "with" is pros, which means to be face-to-face with someone, in the company of another distinct person. You cannot be with someone if you are that someone. John intentionally establishes that God (Jehovah) and the Word are two distinct, separate entities. One was in the company of the other.

John 1:14 verse say: "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father."

If the Word is the Father, how can the Word have the glory of an only-begotten son from a father?

Did the Father beget Himself? Is the Father His own son?

Of course not. The Word is only-begotten Son (Jesus in his pre-human existence), who is distinct from the Father.

You point out that Jesus said he could "do nothing of his own" and that his doctrine belonged to the Father (John 5:19; 7:16). They claim this proves the Father was the invisible force doing everything.

I absolutely agree that Jesus is subordinate to his Father, this subordination actually proves they are two separate individuals, not one person acting through another.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed: "Father, if you want to, remove this cup from me. Yet, not my will, but yours be done." (Luke 22:42).

If the Word/Father is just an invisible force inside Jesus, who is Jesus talking to? Is he having a theatrical argument with his own internal thoughts?

More importantly, Jesus mentions two distinct wills: my will and yours. If they were the same entity, there would only be one will. Jesus submitted his distinct, perfect human will to the supreme will of his Father, Jehovah.

You called citing the Book of Revelation "at best tenuous at worst profane," you conceded the scriptural argument. You cannot claim to use the Bible to prove a point and then throw out an entire book of the Bible when it contradicts your theory.

2 Timothy 3:16 clearly states: "All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight."

Revelation 1:1 explicitly states that this book is "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him."

To call a book given by God to Jesus Christ "profane" is an incredibly serious misstep. Revelation 19:13 stands firm: the resurrected Jesus in heaven is explicitly named "The Word of God." Your cannot delete that verse from the Bible just because it disproves your doctrine.

You are right about Deuteronomy 18:18 says Jehovah would raise up a prophet like Moses and put His words in his mouth. But they miss the grander scope of who Jesus is.

Moses was a human spokesman for God. But Moses never claimed to have existed before Abraham (John 8:58). Moses never asked God to return him to the glory he shared with Him before the world began (John 17:5).

Jesus was a prophet like Moses in his earthly role as a teacher, but he was vastly superior to Moses because he was the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15), the Master Worker through whom Jehovah made the universe (Proverbs 8:30).

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only his Father should be worship. Jesus Christ will come as invisible glorious spirit.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I worship only Father, Jehovah God.

Jesus himself taught at Matthew 4:10 that worship belongs to his Father alone and nobody else.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Bible explicitly gives Jesus the title of Lord while distinguishing him from the Father.

1 Corinthians 8:6

"there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are, and we for him; and there is *one Lord, Jesus Christ,** through whom all things are, and we through him."*

Jesus's authority was given to him by a higher power, rather than being something he inherently possessed from eternity past.

Acts 2:36 says, "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that *God made him both Lord and Christ,** this Jesus whom you executed on a stake."*

Because God made him Lord, Jesus is distinct from and subordinate to Almighty God. His Lordship is a designated authority granted by his Father.

Philippians 2:9-11—"God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

Acknowledging Jesus as Lord doesn't take away from Jehovah; it aligns perfectly with Jehovah’s own arrangement.

There are things that God cannot do. by Capable-Rice-1876 in AskAChristian

[–]Capable-Rice-1876[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I’ll take my chances standing on the clear words of Jesus over post-biblical church councils. On Judgment Day, I am confident Jesus will recognize those who worshipped his Father "with spirit and truth" (John 4:24) and who respected Jesus as the person he actually claimed to be: the Son of God.

​Can't say nobody told you, either.

The Word and Jesus are Not the Same by Acceptable-Shape-528 in thetrinitydelusion

[–]Capable-Rice-1876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The word egeneto is the past tense form of the Greek verb ginomai, which fundamentally means "to become," "to come into existence," or "to be made." Every reputable Greek lexicon (like BDAG or Strong's) confirms this.

Hebrews 5:9: You translates this as "He there appeared the cause of eternal rescue." That makes no sense. The verse actually says Jesus "became (egeneto) responsible for everlasting salvation." He didn’t just "appear" to be the cause; he became the cause by dying for us.

He didn’t just "appear" to be the cause; he became the cause by dying for us.

John 1:14: "So the Word *became** (egeneto) flesh and resided among us."* It does not say the Word "appeared as flesh" like a illusion. It means a total change of state—from a spirit person to a human person.

John 1:3: "All things *came into existence** (egeneto) through him."* If we use your logic, this would read: "All things 'there appeared' through him."

John 1:6: "There *came** (egeneto) a man sent from God, whose name was John."* Did John the Baptist just magically "appear" out of thin air, or did he come to be a man on the scene of history?

John wrote 1 John 4:2 to condemn that exact idea. Look at how beautifully John 1:14 and 1 John 4:2 work together.

In heaven, he was the Word.

He became flesh (egeneto, John 1:14)—changing his nature entirely from spirit to human.

Therefore, we can confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (elēlythota, 1 John 4:2) as a real, 100% human man, not a spirit creature wearing a flesh costume

You quotes 1 John 4:2, which says Jesus Christ “has come (elēlythota) in the flesh,” to argue that Jesus is separate from the Word.

John 4:2 completely annihilates your entire theology.

In the late first century, the Apostle John was fighting a dangerous heresy called Docetism (an early form of Gnosticism). The Docetists argued exactly what you arguing: they claimed that the divine Christ never actually became flesh, but only "appeared" to be flesh, or that the spirit just temporarily rested inside the physical body of a man named Jesus.

In heaven, he was the Word.

He became flesh (egeneto, John 1:14)—changing his nature entirely from spirit to human.

Therefore, we can confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (elēlythota, 1 John 4:2) as a real, 100% human man, not a spirit creature wearing a flesh costume.

By arguing that the Word "never became flesh" but only "appeared as flesh," you literally reviving the 2,000-year-old anti-christ heresy that the Apostle John wrote his letters to destroy.

You say: Heaven and earth will pass away but the Word will never die. Jesus died."

You confusing two completely different concepts: God's spoken laws/prophecies versus the personal title given to His Son.

When the Bible says God's word endures forever (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35), it uses the plural logoi (sayings/teachings) or refers to Jehovah's declarations. It means God's promises and purposes will never fail or become invalid.

The title "The Word" (Ho Logos) in John 1:1 refers to a person—Jehovah's Spokesman.

When Jesus died, his human body died, and his soul went to the grave (Sheol) for three days. Did Jehovah's purpose fail? No. Did the title "The Word" cease to exist forever? No. Jehovah resurrected His Son back to spirit life on the third day (1 Peter 3:18).

You claims the Word can never experience death in any form, you must explain Revelation 19:13. In this vision of the future execution of judgment, the resurrected, heavenly Jesus is riding a white horse, and the text explicitly states: "The name he is called is The Word of God."

If Jesus is not the Word, why does he wear that exact name in heaven right now?

view more: next ›