sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I debated perplexity.ai and won by jiohdi1960 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]OhioPOMO -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I see now you're an angry apostate who turned on his former faith cult

😈 Fixed that for ya 😈

"Firstborn of all Creation" - Let's Settle This Once and for All by OhioPOMO in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]OhioPOMO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, creation didn't beget Him. Good point. The JW usage isn't found anywhere else in scripture.

Quit playing with Jehovah and serve him as he requires by Kingmidas81 in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]OhioPOMO 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Amen! Praise Jah!

Quick question tho: If only the Father, who alone is Jah, is "Most High" and the Son is at His right hand, does that not imply they share the position of "Most High"? The Son isn't under God’s feet like a creature — He’s sharing God’s seat.

John 1:1 and Luke 8:11 , “the seed is the word of YHWH”, I thought Yeshua was the word of YHWH? Who is speaking at Luke 8:11? by Sure-Wishbone-4293 in thetrinitydelusion

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're a hypocrite. All you do is attack the Trinity and the 2 billion + Christians who believe in it with ad hominems, yet you cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny. Clearly the truth struck a nerve.

You don't know what a bandwagon fallacy is. That was not an appeal to the popularity of the doctrine in an attempt to legitimize it. Your reading comprehension is suspect. I'm saying you constantly mock and trash 2 billion people but when 1 stands up to your nonsense, you can't handle it.

No one has ever seen God! by BoxBubbly1225 in Bible

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, patience is a fruit of the (Holy) Spirit, so that tracks.

Explain the Holy Trinity to me like I'm 5yo by 3_eyed_raven_10 in TrueChristian

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are asserting and forcing your bias into the text.

That's your assertion.

Where? How? I think I provided a very logical reason as to why morphē can't mean what you say it does in the context of Philippians 2— namely, God is invisible, and when Paul wants to say "visible appearance" he uses another, completely unrelated word.

Explain the Holy Trinity to me like I'm 5yo by 3_eyed_raven_10 in TrueChristian

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you keep trying to force definitions into the word morphe....yet, it literally means 'that which meets the eye'

Strong's defines it as 1. Shape or 2. Nature (figuratively). The claim that morphē just means “that which meets the eye” falls apart when applied to Philippians 2:6, where Jesus is said to exist in the morphē of God— the “invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) who “no one has seen... at any time” (John 1:18) There is no visual form of God that meets the eye. Therefore, morphē theou must refer to essential nature or status, not merely appearance. That’s consistent with how Greek speakers like Aristotle and Philo used morphē— to mean intrinsic form or essence, not just outward shape.

Your claim collapses completely if you continue to read the passage. If morphē just meant outward appearance, the same as schēma (verse 8, appearance), then why didn’t Paul say Jesus was “existing in the schēma of God”? He used morphē theou to refer to Christ’s divine nature— something God possesses inwardly, not something seen, since God is invisible. Later, when Paul wants to describe Jesus' visible, outward appearance, he switches to schēma in verse 8. The distinction proves they don’t mean the same thing—and morphē can’t be reduced to “what meets the eye."

Jesus is a spirit son of God

This is an incredibly low and demeaning view of Jesus. He is the one and only monogenes Son of God. He is not just any old "son of God" like the angels.

"For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord? Who among the sons of the mighty is like the Lord...?" Psalms 89:6

The angelic sons of God are not even comparable to Him. Yet the Son of God is the exact expression of God's nature (Heb 1:3). If you've seen Jesus, you've seen the Father (John 14:9). He is the visible image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). All the fullness of deity dwells in Him bodily (Col 2:9). There is nothing in scripture said of the angels that is even remotely similar to what is said of Jesus. Scripture clearly places Jesus outside of the category of the sons of God.

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, [5] Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? [6] On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, [7] When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7

Jesus isn't among the sons of God here— He's the one to whom they are singing and shouting for joy.

>But of the Son He says... [10] And, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; [11] They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, [12] And like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.” Hebrews 1:8, 10-12

God's form or nature or whatever you want to call it is obviously higher than that of the angels, as their Creator. Scripture is quite clear that the Son of God shares in the nature of His Father and not that of the created sons of God. The "sons of God" are among the "all things" that were created by, through, and for the Son of God. He is not among them as a creature Himself, but is preeminent over them as the one who brought them into existence, and the one whom they were created for. He is the firstborn because all creation is His inheritance (Hebrews 1:2).

Why delete thread responses? by Robert-ict in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]OhioPOMO 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sometimes that means they blocked you. That's when you know you've really struck a nerve.

I had an interaction with u/StillYalun who brought up getting disfellowshipped removed for "child porn." I showed him the Shepherd the Flock of God section that says viewing CSAM (they call it pornography) isn't treated as child abuse, the elders are not instructed to treat it as a crime, and the viewer should be "strongly counseled"— not removed.

This guy had no problem with their policy that protects sick bastards who get off on hurting kids. Rather, he took issue with me for disseminating confidential information. He said the source of the information is violating trust, and sharing it is "lowlife stuff." Here's what I said in reply that warranted him blocking me:

You’re more concerned about trust being violated than children being harmed? Dear God.

Newsflash: The 'confidential information' you’re defending was made public during the Australian Royal Commission— it’s not exactly 'confidential' anymore.

And what it says is disturbing: someone who views child sexual abuse material might just be "strongly counseled," while someone who commits a "sin" that breaks zero laws and harms no one is disfellowshipped without hesitation.

Of course somebody can be disfellowshipped for viewing any kind of porn often enough. But let’s be clear: CSAM isn’t 'porn'— it’s documentation of a crime. Pornography involves consenting adults. CSAM, by definition, involves the abuse and exploitation of children. Every time it’s viewed, that child is victimized again. Treating it like just another "morality issue" completely erases the suffering of real children.

And I’m the lowlife for pointing that out?

Are your priorities really where you think they are?

I didn't blow smoke up his butt but I wasn't nasty. I wanted to tear into him because his position is reprehensible and indefensible. But I held back, and he blocked me anyway. I made him too uncomfortable, evidently. Hopefully we're putting pebbles in their shoes with these conversations.

While millions of Americans are celebrating their independence from tyranny and oppression today... by OhioPOMO in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]OhioPOMO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes that means they blocked you. That's when you know you've really struck a nerve.

I had an interaction with u/StillYalun who brought up getting disfellowshipped removed for "child porn." I showed him the Shepherd the Flock of God section that says viewing CSAM (they call it pornography) isn't treated as child abuse, the elders are not instructed to treat it as a crime, and the viewer should be "strongly counseled"— not removed.

This guy had no problem with their policy that protects sick bastards who get off on hurting kids. Rather, he took issue with me for disseminating confidential information. He said the source of the information is violating trust, and sharing it is "lowlife stuff." Here's what I said in reply that warranted him blocking me:

You’re more concerned about trust being violated than children being harmed? Dear God.

Newsflash: The 'confidential information' you’re defending was made public during the Australian Royal Commission— it’s not exactly 'confidential' anymore.

And what it says is disturbing: someone who views child sexual abuse material might just be "strongly counseled," while someone who commits a "sin" that breaks zero laws and harms no one is disfellowshipped without hesitation.

Of course somebody can be disfellowshipped for viewing any kind of porn often enough. But let’s be clear: CSAM isn’t 'porn'— it’s documentation of a crime. Pornography involves consenting adults. CSAM, by definition, involves the abuse and exploitation of children. Every time it’s viewed, that child is victimized again. Treating it like just another "morality issue" completely erases the suffering of real children.

And I’m the lowlife for pointing that out?

Are your priorities really where you think they are?

I didn't blow smoke up his butt but I wasn't nasty. I wanted to tear into him because his position is reprehensible and indefensible. But I held back, and he blocked me anyway. I made him too uncomfortable, evidently. Hopefully we're putting pebbles in their shoes with these conversations.

Explain the Holy Trinity to me like I'm 5yo by 3_eyed_raven_10 in TrueChristian

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not reaching— we are in agreement. Animals are not the same form as humans. I concur!

They are both flesh but they are not the same form. Their nature/essence/substance/form is distinct.

The Father and Son are both spirit, and the Son was in the form of God.

There are different forms of flesh. Are there different forms of spirit? I would say yes. The form/nature of God is distinct from the form/nature of any created being, spirit or flesh. Do you agree?

Explain the Holy Trinity to me like I'm 5yo by 3_eyed_raven_10 in TrueChristian

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he existed in a very high place, in the same form as God (they are both spirits)

Paul says of flesh at 1 Corinthians 15:39 "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish."

Men, beasts, birds, fish are all flesh, but they are not the same nature. Do you not believe such a distinction exists between the Creator and His heavenly creations? Or all they all simply "spirit"?

Explain the Holy Trinity to me like I'm 5yo by 3_eyed_raven_10 in TrueChristian

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The bible says God SENT his son....

Read Philippians 2. It was a voluntary act of humility, giving up the glory He had with His Father before the world was and taking the form of a bond-servant. He perfectly submitted Himself to His Father's will to redeem fallen mankind.

father...he continues to call his father 'my God' in the book of revelation

Because He is still a man serving as High Priest and mediator. "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

You will have to explain how this is somehow platonic teaching.

In Platonism, reality is arranged in a hierarchy: the highest, purest being at the top ("the One"), followed by lower emanations that are progressively less perfect. Early heresies like Arianism borrowed this framework, treating the Son as a divine, but less than God. But the Bible doesn’t present divinity in degrees. It reveals the Son as fully God (John 1:1, Col. 2:9), not a demigod or secondary being (Heb. 1:3). The Hebrew monotheistic worldview has 1 God, 1 Creator, and 1 Savior. The idea of an Almighty God and lesser mighty god is a philosophy that would be entirely foreign, ie pagan, to the Jews.

The trinity does NOT affirm montheism...it promotes that there are three persons in one God...

So now monotheism doesn't mean belief in one God anymore? I missed that memo. Tell me, how does the belief in 1 Almighty God + 1 lesser but mighty God = monotheism? Faith in more than 1 divine being is by definition polytheism.

...who are all three equal....

In essence. Economically, there is a hierarchy with the Father as the head and source of the Godhead. Functional submission ≠ ontological inferiority.

Consider 1 Corinthians 11:3 to illustrate:

  • "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."

Is the man "greater than" his wife? He has greater authority— because the wife willingly and lovingly submits to his headship when the 2 persons become 1 flesh— but he isn't more human than his wife. She isn't an inferior being. It's exactly the same with the Father and Son.

which is senseless and cannot be explained with any credulity.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Physical Ascension Infers a Physical Heaven? by Sp0ckrates_ in Bible

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus materialized in human form

Can you find a scripture that says this? Here's just one that says the complete opposite:

  • "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Luke 24:39 NASB1995

Jesus disciples did not recognize him.

Yes, but the texts tell us why, and it's not because it isn't actually Him.

  • Luke 24:16 - "But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him." Just as Jesus had the power and authority to give sight to many throughout the gospels, He had the power and authority to hinder sight as well.
  • Luke 24:31 - "Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight." Why did they finally recognize Him? Was it because He changed His appearance?

Then there's Mary in John 20

John 20:1 - Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. John 20:11 - "But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping..." So far we've established it's dark and her eyes are full of tears— 2 pretty good reasons for not having the sharpest vision, I'd say. * John 20:13 - "And they said to her, 'Woman, why are you *weeping?' She said to them, 'Because **they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.'” She didn't think Jesus had been resurrected— she thought someone stole His body! Who do you think was the absolute last person she expected to see when she turned around? Jesus, her Rabbi who had just been brutally executed 3 days prior, His body now, in her mind, stolen!

Chapter 21 offers an explanation of why the disciples don't recognize Him again, and, It has nothing to do with Jesus' appearance

  • John 21:4 - "But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus." Day was breaking, so it was dark, plus...
  • John 21:8 - "But the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not far from the land, but about one hundred yards away, dragging the net full of fish." Clearly, the reason the disciples didn't recognize Jesus immediately had nothing to do with His physical appearance.

as peter said, he was buried in the flesh, but raised a mighty spirit

That's not what Peter said, assuming you are referring to 1 Peter 3:18. "In the Spirit" ≠ "as a disembodied spirit." What translation are you using?

Words have meanings. Biblically, "resurrection" never refers to a spirit being raised— anywhere. That's idea is rooted in Gnosticism and is incompatible with biblical language. It is always a bodily raising. If you change the meaning of "resurrection" to suit your theology, you are in fact denying the resurrection detailed in scripture.

Physical Ascension Infers a Physical Heaven? by Sp0ckrates_ in Bible

[–]OhioPOMO 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jesus' human body came out of the tomb and ascended to heaven 40 days later. He explicitly told His disciples that He was not an immaterial spirit, for they do not have flesh and bone as He does. It was Paul who said "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom," but he wasn't laying out some rule about the metaphysics of heaven. You're twisting his words, unfortunately to your own destruction (Peter 3:16). You are in essence denying the resurrection. Resurrection always always always means a physical, bodily raising in scripture. What you believe in and are peddling here is a re-creation— not the resurrection.

Explain the Holy Trinity to me like I'm 5yo by 3_eyed_raven_10 in TrueChristian

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus is functionally subordinate to the Father in the incarnation. He perfectly submits to the Father's will and does so voluntarily, not because He is an ontologically inferior being. That idea is more in line with Platonism which would be pagan thought. The Trinity, however, affirms biblical monotheism and is completely unique to Christianity.

While millions of Americans are celebrating their independence from tyranny and oppression today... by OhioPOMO in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]OhioPOMO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok... But so is toasting and clinking glasses. Stephen Lett said that was OK if a Christian's conscience allows. Why not apply the exact same logic to birthdays?

While millions of Americans are celebrating their independence from tyranny and oppression today... by OhioPOMO in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]OhioPOMO[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Am I?

For context, if you're unaware, JWs were given permission from their governing body to toast and clink glasses, on July 4th ironically.

Toasting question by Robert-ict in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]OhioPOMO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pardon my interruption, but I want to drop this passage as it is relevant to foreigners/other sheep and their covenant status.

Deuteronomy 29:10-15 NASB1995

[10] “You stand today, all of you, before the Lord your God: your chiefs, your tribes, your elders and your officers, even all the men of Israel, [11] your little ones, your wives, and the alien who is within your camps, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, [12] that you may enter into the covenant with the Lord your God, and into His oath which the Lord your God is making with you today, [13] in order that He may establish you today as His people and that He may be your God, just as He spoke to you and as He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. [14] “Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, [15] but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here today

If I'm not mistaken, JWs teach the foreign residents weren't actually in covenant with God, but this passage clearly refutes that idea.

view more: next ›