The Bush religious crusade in perspective.

posting at 1:55 AM and don't have the Bible to hand could you include the citation rather than just Chapter and Verse, KP. Just a request.

Rob Boyter

It has come to our attention that you are one who doesn't have a bible to hand during discussions about the bible. We want you to know that you have our complete support in this. We have decades of combined experience in this area, and that attitude has certainly benefited us, to the point that we are two of the best known religious people of the last century. That alone should comfort you when others look askance at your decision. Keep up the good work; see you later.
/s/ Jim Jones
/s/ Vernon Little aka David Koresh

But what does it have to do with anything?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

I would say that's quite relevant.

Php 2:9-11; NIV
"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Php 2:9-11; NWT
"For this very reason also 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 of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."
These translators say the single brackets enclose words "inserted to complete the sense in the English text." But is that a defensible choice here? In a case like this it's good to use the bible to teach the bible.

There's another text on the same subject, same writer, at Eph 1:20,21; NWT.
"with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come."
Here he says, simply, "every name named," and no interpolations.

But Paul also used similar language about Jesus in 1 Cor 15:27, where the topic was the end times.
"For [God] 'subjected all things under his feet.' But when he says that 'all things have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." (1Co 15:27-28; NWT) Now the meaning is clear: Jesus is not, nor ever will be, Jehovah. But do the NIV translators agree? Yes.

"For he 'has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." 1 Cor 15:27,28; NIV
"It is clear." We might have guessed as much even from the other quotes, since they use two-person phrases like "God exalted him" and "to the glory of God the Father" and "he raised him up from the dead." But 1 Corinthians removes all doubt. This means that Jesus is not God, Almighty God, Yahweh, Jehovah, or God the Father. He is not "God the son," a favorite phrase of men who found it only in their man-made "creeds."
Why did Paul give such detail to the Corinthian congregation, while assuming the others would come to the correct conclusion with less help?

The Philippi and Ephesus congregations were the recipients of just the two relatively brief letters, both in large part commendatory. (Php 1:3-11; Eph 1:15-19) Although poor in means, the Philippians not only sent material gifts to an imprisoned Paul but also dispatched their personal envoy Epaphroditus, a man valuable to them. (Php 2:25-30; 4:1 Ephesus was a wealthy city, with a tendency to view worldly riches as the most important thing. It was also noted for its licentiousness. Worst of all, the Christians lived in the shadow of the pagan temple of Artemis, regarded as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. But those who came out of that system to become Christians were whole-souled about it. "Quite a number of those who practiced magical arts brought their books together and burned them up before everybody. And they calculated together the prices of them and found them worth fifty thousand pieces of silver [perhaps $40,000]." (Ac 19:19)

Corinth also was a prominent city of ancient Greece. All land traffic going N and S had to pass Corinth in traversing the isthmus; maritime traffic also generally made use of this isthmus rather than risk the voyage around the storm-swept southern end of the peninsula. The Isthmian Games, fostering a competitive and idolatrous spirit, were established at the temple of Poseidon in the 7th cent. B.C.E. In the minds of many persons the city symbolized licentiousness, so that the expression "to Corinthianize" came into use as meaning "to practice immorality." This was a product of false worship, particularly of the goddess Aphrodite. Although originally strong, many in the congregation had succumbed to the spirit of the world by the time of Paul's first letter. (Acts 18:9-11; 1 Cor 5:1-5; 15:33)

In Corinth there was a stubborn tendency to deviation from the pure teaching of God's word by men who sought prominence for their own ideas. (2 Cor 11:3-6, 12-15; 2 Tim 4:3,4) So Paul gave the Corinthians the full story, step by easy step, as a mother feeds an infant. (1 Cor 3:1-3) The arrogant tendency remains, so the teaching is still useful.

Many today talk about the trinity, but few if any pray to that "god." The real purpose of the doctrine is twofold: To mask, rather than magnify, the name of Jesus' "one true God" Jehovah, by making the creation equal to the Creator. And to distract people from "this good news of the Kingdom." (Rom 1:25; John 17:3; Mt 24:14)

It isn't easy to give up long-held and cherished ideas, especially for a minority view. Paul and Peter, to name two, needed strong help from above to do just that. (Acts ch. 9; 10:9-23) And the full reward is in a future uncertain, as we are prone to see it. But it is, after all, the meek or humble ones who are promised the earth- a paradise earth like Adam's, under a government led by the resurrected Jesus. (Ps 37:29; Php 2:9-11)
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Doug, do you think the Father is going to punish you if you also consider Jesus as God? If so, would that be this life, or the next, or both? If you send an emissary don't you want those who received him to regard his word as your own and to show him the same respect?

What is the purpose of your doctrine about Yahweh or Jehovah being the Father only?

I'm curious who you think the 3 were that visited Abraham before the destruction of Sodom?

James, do you think I'll be punished by Ford if I'm seen everywhere talking up Chevy? If so, how dare those imperfect men at Ford hassle me for doing so? Don't cars have many names?

More to the point: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." KJV
"I am Jehovah, that is my name..." Isa 42:8, ASV
"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God," ANY
'Noah did just so' ANY

Or perhaps you're asking this, a question I've heard before in one form or another: 'Do you think God will punish you if you don't get your religion from a bunch of old men in Brooklyn?'
My answer: I get my religion from the bible, written by Jehovah. He wasn't shy about putting his name all through it. Other old men- Graham, Moody, Erasmus- were shy about proclaiming the personal name of the God they claim to worship. The same God Jesus worships down to this day. I determined this after consulting with the 'old men' and then doing my own research. The old men were right; Billy Graham is wrong: God doesn't have three heads, he isn't a multitoonity, he purposes to restore the earth to paradisaic conditions, not to burn it up. I'm staking my life on this being true.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

You persist in denying His only Son who the Watchtower claims is Micheal the archangel promoted to the role of son of God.

Heb 1:6-9 And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says,

" And let all the angels of God worship Him."

7 And of the angels He says,

"Who makes His angels winds,
And His ministers a flame of fire."

8 But of the Son He says,

"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
9 "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee
With the oil of gladness above Thy companions." NASB

Who do the angels worship? The Father's Son; Jesus Christ. How does the Father address Him? As God.

Heb 10:28-31 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge His people." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. NASB

....you are trying to claim God suffers from schizophrenia, or some sort of multiple personality syndrome? That's the only thing I can see would fit your concept and adequately be addressed as a "multi-toonity". Or is that a multitudity?

Consistently on SE I have quoted from the bible to demonstrate this truth, as the Jews and Jesus believe. So the "multitoonity" post (not the one you're replying to, BTW) is clearly ironic:

1) Ananias puts a lying gift ?. . .at the feet of the apostles.? (Ac 5:2)
2) Peter says this 'plays false to the holy spirit' (Ac 5:3) Thereby, according to trinitarian reasoning ad nauseam, Peter is "the holy spirit."
3) Further, this same Holy Spirit Person teaches, ?You have played false, not to men, but to God? (Ac 5:4)
So Peter and "the apostles" are God (is Gods?).

Trinitarian teaching; ask one of them to explain it.
Jesus teaches that he, today, right now, worships Jehovah as God. Rev 3:12

it doesn't even deserve a comment! That was the most twisted reading of the Bible that I have ever seen! Are you sure you understand what you just posted as to who the Holy Sprit is? Clue: NOT PETER!

that it certainly isn't the bible's. Ask a trinitarian to explain it to you.

statement that lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God. No trinitarian, as you call them, has thought that up. It is a plain statement by Peter. Oh! I'm sorry! You are right for Peter is a 'trinitarian' isn't he? A quick look at the passage rather than a single verse will show that this is true.

Acts 4:31-5:4 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

Acts 5

5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

3 Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." NIV

What do we see here DR? It was the custom among these believers to sell their possessions and lay the proceeds at the apostles' feet. This was done so the less fortunate would have their needs met. As you noted, Ananias did the same. He didn't give his gift to Peter, and he didn't say anything to anyone. Why then, when Peter says Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit, do you conclude that Peter is saying Ananias has lied to Peter? Peter doesn't claim that he is the Holy Spirit, and he doesn't claim that Ananias has lied to him (Peter). There is no Christian thinker, you call them trinitarians, who would say that Peter was claiming to be the Holy Spirit.

You can only lie to a person. You are aware that that is your problem. Peter says that Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit, and you can only do that if the Holy Spirit is a person. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is a person; He is God the Holy Spirit, and Peter says that Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit who is God. The problem for you DR, is that Watchtower theology falls apart if the Holy Spirit is both a person and God. That is why the Watchtower tries to deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Poking fun at the Holy Spirit (i.e. 'multitoonity') is a VERY dangerous game. Jesus warned that offending Him (i.e. the Holy Spirit) IS an unforgivable sin.

BTW, here is Strong's definition of the word 'one' used in De. 6:4;

OT:259 'echad (ekh-awd'); a numeral from OT:258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:

KJV - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain, [daily-], each (one), eleven, every, few, first, highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together,

and OT:258;

'achad (aw-khad'); perhaps a primitive root; to unify, i.e. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts):

KJV - go one way or other.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright

Made up 7 shots in two hours!

I agree, though -- he's been looking like the Tiger of old. However, he just ran into a bit of trouble at the 7th and 8th, but still leads by 3.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

got my point.
However, I won't do it again.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Oh well. Another non-answer. That does speak volumes about the Watchtower doesn't it?

Can you put us in touch with someone named "Evie "? We're very interested in talking to her.
Yr ob'd't srvts, as above

comment. That way, he doesn't have to discuss and defend his ideas. I have decided to respond in like manner as shorthand for a concept. That is that DR is flat out wrong when he denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Here is the text of the passage;

Phil 2:9-11 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. NASU

I have already explained, at length, to DR why the use of 'Lord' here means 'Yahweh'. So, the passage says that all will confess that Jesus is God and will worship Him. This is the view of the Christian church, and has been for 2,000 years. There was a controversy started by a man named Arias (sp?) about 300AD. It was very similar to the view held by the Watchtower. It was decreed to be heresy at the Council of Nicea (sp?).

Perhaps you should object when DR posts this kind of item? Maybe he would stop?

copyrights, etc. I do know that posting our translation or linking to it would expose the mostly trinitarian readers to the proper name "Jehovah," which the site owners would consider counterproductive.
Our full NWT with references is available at
www.watchtower.org
for those interested. Also many CD-rom versions, including the $9.95 ones at Staples, have the ASV on them. That's the one highly praised by many of the trinitarian sites & bible translators mentioned on this forum. Its translators weren't afraid of the Name.
Regards, Doug in New World ... sorry, New Mexico

My point about nouns versus verbs is one of translation. To get an authoritative and accurate translation one must take account of the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek sources and the most precise translation of both the words and the meaning behind the words. In English in the last century or so we have begun converting nouns into verbs because it is quick, useful and enables us to communicate better. With biblical scholarship it is essentially the reverse process. The language must be returned to its strictest purest meaning; it is the only way to be sure you're getting close to the meaning and intent of those quoted in the Bible and thus the Bible itself. Does this all seem like hair-splitting? It doesn't to me but I don't wish to seem to be posting to hear(?!) the sound(!!) of my own voice. Its just the classicist/historian in me that recognizes that assumptions we make now about occurrences 2000 years ago can be wrong, and worse, dangerous.

Rob Boyter

interpretation are all about. Determining exactly what was said, and, more important, what the writer or speakers were actually saying (i.e. the meaning and content).

That is why it changes so often?