Genesis 1:1 , John 1:1

Originally posted by Startreader
It does indeed offer all of that. And it calls itself the Truth.

That "certainty" is reinforced in its members' literature, in their meetings, in daily prayer meetings if a member attends those, in the literature given to the public, on its website and in countless other ways, subtle and unsubtle.

It's also reinforced by the strict requirements p ...[text shortened]... ature is full of graphic pictures of all, even babes in arms being destroyed in Jehovah's wrath.

"Certainty" is widespread among Christians of all hues and stripes. From my point of view, as a set of beliefs and doctrines, what the Jehovah's Witnesses subscribe to is no more or less far-fetched or unconvincing than Catholicism or Islam or Hinduism, for example.

Originally posted by FMF
"Certainty" is widespread among Christians of all hues and stripes. From my point of view, as a set of beliefs and doctrines, what the Jehovah's Witnesses subscribe to is no more or less far-fetched or unconvincing than Catholicism or Islam or Hinduism, for example.

Evidently.

Originally posted by Startreader
Sorry to say this, Robbie, but really, all this copying and pasting from the Watchtower is a bit like having a pamphlet forcibly shoved in the face or through the door.

It was not shoved or forced upon anyone. No one was under any duress to read it. Furthermore it was produced in reply to a specific point made by Ghost of a Duke and contains numerous Biblical references explaining what was meant by those who 'saw God'. Its an excellent article and I make no apologies for having reproduced it here for it answers admirably the point that Ghost of a Duke was making and is edifying to any sincere student of Gods words regardless of their religious disposition and who wishes to resolve that matter of those who in the Bible claim to have 'seen God' and the Biblical idea that no one can 'see God' and live.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It was not shoved or forced upon anyone. No one was under any duress to read it. Furthermore it was produced in reply to a specific point made by Ghost of a Duke and contains numerous Biblical references explaining what was meant by those who 'saw God'. Its an excellent article and I make no apologies for having reproduced it here for it answers ad ...[text shortened]... in the Bible claim to have 'seen God' and the Biblical idea that no one can 'see God' and live.

Hey man, i like posted nothing in this thread, and you, like, go all biblical on me, like.

(Just causing trouble).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Hey man, i like posted nothing in this thread, and you, like, go all biblical on me, like.

(Just causing trouble).

The Bible? anyone remember the Bible? much of Western art, literature and music influenced by it? worlds most distributed and widely translated book, nah? oh well guess I'll be moving on. . . .wah wah wah

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Bible? anyone remember the Bible? much of Western art, literature and music influenced by it? worlds most distributed and widely translated book, nah? oh well guess I'll be moving on. . . .wah wah wah

Why bother with the Bible when you have NWT.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
● Exodus 33:20 states: “There shall no man see me, and live.” Yet Exodus 24:10 says concerning Moses and some of the elders of Israel: “They saw the God of Israel.” How can these apparently conflicting statements be harmonized?—C. B., Pennsylvania.

It is literally true that no flesh-and-blood organism could see Jehovah God and live. As a spirit cr ...[text shortened]... s was seeing God prove the representative angels were embraced in any trinity godhead.

jw.org

Cherry-picking, as usual.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Cherry-picking, as usual.

failure to address the content as usual.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
failure to address the content as usual.

Making a point about cherry picking is addressing the content. Admittedly not in any great detail. The Bible is inconsistent on this point, some parts have looking on God to mean certain death and others do not, most notably the struggle between Israel (ie Jacob) and the man. Further, even if you are right, and looking at God means death, it doesn't automatically follow that this means that the Trinity cannot be true. Jesus, in that view, is God incarnate and part of the process of incarnation would be to arrange things so that people don't die the second they look at him. I don't think that arguing against the Trinity on those grounds works particularly well.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Making a point about cherry picking is addressing the content. Admittedly not in any great detail. The Bible is inconsistent on this point, some parts have looking on God to mean certain death and others do not, most notably the struggle between Israel (ie Jacob) and the man. Further, even if you are right, and looking at God means death, it doesn't a ...[text shortened]... t him. I don't think that arguing against the Trinity on those grounds works particularly well.

If she feels that evidence has been suppressed in order to present a biased perspective then she should at least have the intellectual honesty and courtesy to provide it. Otherwise its simply an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated opinion masquerading as some kind of fact.

Secondly the article was not offered as a refutation of the trinity. It was offered to address a particular and seeming contradiction which it does so admirably and with reference. If you feel those references are somehow cherry picked to address the point then please state why that is the case now.

I would like to point out that I am advocating the Biblical perspective, i did not author the ideas, the fact is that the Bible states that no man can see God and live. I did not make this up and I don't know why you think i have.

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Exodus 33:20

Furthermore this DOES logically exclude the idea that Jesus is God otherwise we need to reconcile the idea that people saw Jesus and lived with the idea 'that no one can see God and live', a rather inconvenient problem for those who advocate the idea that Jesus is God. Whether you think it works well is neither here nor their, logic doesn't care about what you think works well or not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If she feels that evidence has been suppressed in order to present a biased perspective then she should at least have the intellectual honesty and courtesy to provide it. Otherwise its simply an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated opinion masquerading as some kind of fact.

Secondly the article was not offered as a refutation of the trinity. It wa ...[text shortened]... works well is neither here nor their, logic doesn't care about what you think works well or not.

You think that God is unable to arrange things so that one can look at him and not die?

Originally posted by DeepThought
You think that God is unable to arrange things so that one can look at him and not die?

I am sure he can. Are you saying you have evidence that he did just that on everyone that looked upon Jesus Christ from his birth to manhood? No, then what do you have?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sure he can. Are you saying you have evidence that he did just that on everyone that looked upon Jesus Christ from his birth to manhood? No, then what do you have?

Well then. If God can prevent someone dying because they have seen his face then your argument that seeing the face of God causing death does not rule out a Trinity.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well then. If God can prevent someone dying because they have seen his face then your argument that seeing the face of God causing death does not rule out a Trinity.

First of all its not my argument, I did not author it, its written in the Bible. This is the
second time I have pointed it out and it rather tedious to have to do so again and again.

Secondly the argument of 'no one seeing Gods face' and the logic of this as it applies
to those who claim Jesus is God most certainly rules out him being part of the trinity, for
if he cannot be God then he cannot be part of a trinity or have you never read

they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each
is God, whole and entire"

Now lets run though it again so you grasp the logic

No one can see God and live - Bible
Many persons saw Jesus Christ - Bible
Logically Jesus cannot be God because many people saw him and lived (there is NO
EVIDENCE that God miraculously intervened to prevent their deaths, NONE!)
If Jesus is not God then he cannot be part of a trinity because
You need to be God to be part of the trinity

Sound, Biblically substantiated and logically unassailable!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
First of all its not my argument, I did not author it, its written in the Bible. This is the
second time I have pointed it out and it rather tedious to have to do so again and again.

Secondly the argument of 'no one seeing Gods face' and the logic of this as it applies
to those who claim Jesus is God most certainly rules out him being part o ...[text shortened]... be God to be part of the trinity

Sound, Biblically substantiated and logically unassailable!

Speaking of "sound, biblically substantiated and logically unassailable", try this one on for size. I already asked roigam about this but he is either ignoring me, or would rather not answer it. He claims that Isaiah 43:10 means that Jehovah's Witnesses are the "chosen people", i.e. those that "witness to the entire world" near the end-times and that no other denomination or religion comes close.

I said, that's fine, but what meaning do you get out of the following verse, Isaiah 43:11? Namely this verse: "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." What do you think this means?