Is the trinity pagan ?

Originally posted by galveston75
And yes you are welcome to believe as you see fit.

You can believe Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God, but just the first created being and therefore, should not be worshipped, if you see fit. However, you can not be saved with such a belief.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can believe Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God, but just the first created being and therefore, should not be worshipped, if you see fit. However, you can not be saved with such a belief.

He is the "only begotten son". Your not paying attention.
And...he is the first of all created things. What exactly in this scripture do you not get?

Colossians 1:15
Amplified Bible (AMP)

15 "He is the exact likeness of the unseen God the visible representation of the invisible; He is the Firstborn of all creation".

So read this scripture very, very slowly and get the info here. First if Jesus were God this scripture would simply say that "he is God". But it doesn't. It says he is a "likeness" of God, but not God. And it says he is a "representative" of God, but not God himself. Right? Where in any part of this scripture does it say he is God? NOWHERE does it.
Next it clearly says he is the "first born" of all creation does it not? First born in any language on this planet means just what it say here...Jesus was the "first" of all that God created. None was born before him but much was born or created after him. Is this really that hard to understand? It must be....


And you still have never produced even (((((((((((((((((( 1 )))))))))))))))) scripture in any bible that says we are to worship Jesus or the holy spirit as we do his Father Jehovah.

Please produce this mystery scripture for all to see and that you can prove me wrong??????????????

Originally posted by galveston75
He is the "only begotten son". Your not paying attention.
And...he is the first of all created things. What exactly in this scripture do you not get?

Colossians 1:15
Amplified Bible (AMP)

15 "He is the exact likeness of the unseen God the visible representation of the invisible; He is the Firstborn of all creation".

So read this scripture v ...[text shortened]... is mystery scripture for all to see and that you can prove me wrong??????????????

The statement "the only begotten Son of God" rules out the fact that the Son could be created. God creates and makes His creations, He does not beget a creation. God begets God. Neither does your wife create a child. She begets a child. The difference is the child born of your wife is also a creature because your wife is a creature.

However, Jesus was born of Mary, a creature so Jesus was also a creature and He often referred to Himself as the son of man. But Jesus was not the firstborn of all creatures. There was many born before Him.

So how is Jesus said to be the firstborn of all creation by Paul? Firstborn does not mean He was the first created creature as the Watchtower claims. Some translations translate this verse "firstborn over all creation" and this makes more sense based on what the apostle Paul writes immediately after in completion of the sentence. The Watchtower wants to stop in the middle of the sentence. Paul explains that he is calling Christ Jesus the firstborn over all creation because by Him was created all things, etc., etc. So we could rephrase this to say that Christ Jesus is the firstborn Son of God, who is over all creation because by Him all things were created. This also agrees with what is said in the letter to the Hebrews and the gospel of John.

There is no where in scripture that actually says the Son of God was created by God. It says He was born of God, but never created.

What verses say the Son of God is just in the likeness of God and not God? I recall it saying that God became flesh and God was made manifest in the flesh.

As far as a scriipture to worshp Jesus, I am sure you have seen the scripture where God commands all His angels to worship His Son. If the angels are to worship the Son, what makes you think we should be excluded? And Jesus, Himself, said that we should honor the Son as we honor the Father. I am sure that honor would also include worship. And Jesus also said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable sin. So if the Holy Spirit is that important in the Godhead, then why should we think He would be excluded when we worship God?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The statement "the only begotten Son of God" rules out the fact that the Son could be created. God creates and makes His creations, He does not beget a creation. God begets God. Neither does your wife create a child. She begets a child. The difference is the child born of your wife is also a creature because your wife is a creature.

However, Jesus ...[text shortened]... important in the Godhead, then why should we think He would be excluded when we worship God?

Your opinion and imagination only. The Bible says clearly that Jesus is the "first born of all creation".
You are changing what this scripture says and means to your own liking and that is to support the trinity. A very dangerous thing to do...

Originally posted by RJHinds
The statement "the only begotten Son of God" rules out the fact that the Son could be created. God creates and makes His creations, He does not beget a creation. God begets God. Neither does your wife create a child. She begets a child. The difference is the child born of your wife is also a creature because your wife is a creature.

However, Jesus important in the Godhead, then why should we think He would be excluded when we worship God?

"firstborn over all creation", the Greek text does not say the first born
over all creation, does it, its a trinitarian lie to translate it as the firstborn
over all creation, but thats what you need to do in order to substantiate your
extra biblical doctrine. Shame on the translators of the NIV, their religious bias knows
no bounds.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
"firstborn [b]over all creation", the Greek text does not say the first born
over all creation, does it, its a trinitarian lie to translate it as the firstborn
over all creation, but thats what you need to do in order to substantiate your
extra biblical doctrine. Shame on the translators of the NIV, their religious bias knows
no bounds.[/b]

I know it's a very dishonest thing for them to do. It not only changes God's words but it also misleads millions into a belief that is not in the Bible ever.

Originally posted by galveston75
I know it's a very dishonest thing for them to do. It not only changes God's words but it also misleads millions into a belief that is not in the Bible ever.

Its a religious bias, a clear example of imposing ones exegesis onto the ancient text
where none in fact exists in the original, the NIV is the worst English translation I have
read, its cold and clinical and full of bias.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
"firstborn [b]over all creation", the Greek text does not say the first born
over all creation, does it, its a trinitarian lie to translate it as the firstborn
over all creation, but thats what you need to do in order to substantiate your
extra biblical doctrine. Shame on the translators of the NIV, their religious bias knows
no bounds.[/b]

What is your authority that says it can't be translated "over" and must be "of" huh???

Originally posted by galveston75
I know it's a very dishonest thing for them to do. It not only changes God's words but it also misleads millions into a belief that is not in the Bible ever.

How about you? Can you give an authority that says it can't be translated "over" huh???

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is your authority that says it can't be translated "over" and must be "of" huh???

The Christian Greek scriptures are our authority, not some bent trinitarian dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Christian Greek scriptures are our authority, not some bent trinitarian dogma.

You could have just admitted that you can not produce an authoritative source for your claim. There is no need in disparaging the Christian Greek scriptures.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You could have just admitted that you can not produce an authoritative source for your claim. There is no need in disparaging the Christian Greek scriptures.

i provided my own reasons because i understand the Greek text, i don't need some authority to tell me what the text states, i can read it for myself, you cannot, that is why you make appeals to biased authority because its all you have.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i provided my own reasons because i understand the Greek text, i don't need some authority to tell me what the text states, i can read it for myself, you cannot, that is why you make appeals to biased authority because its all you have.

Are you appealing to yourself as an authority on the Greek text?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you appealing to yourself as an authority on the Greek text?

yes on the same basis that i understand English and Urdu, what of it? you may make reference to the points I have made on the basis of my own understanding if you know anything about it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i provided my own reasons because i understand the Greek text, i don't need some authority to tell me what the text states, i can read it for myself, you cannot, that is why you make appeals to biased authority because its all you have.

Don't you JWs quote Proverbs where it says do not lean to your own understanding. 😀

But seriously, even if some trasnslate it "firstborn of all creation" instead of "firstborn over all creation" -- it does not make sense.

The Greek word is actually a form of Strongs number 3956 which means "all, any, or every."

It is up to the translator to supply the English connecting word that makes sense.

It makes more sense to say the firstborn Son of God is "over all" creation , or "over any" creation, or "over every" creation.

It does not seem right to say the firtsborn Son of God is "of all" creation, or "of any" creation, or "of every" creation.

The firstborn Son of God is the Creator of all creation according to what the remainder of that sentence says.

P.S. This Greek word has a singular ending so I believe that would make "any" the correct English translation instead of "all' or "every" wouldn't you agree?
Or perhaps the singular ending is for the purpose of agreeing with the singular object of the sentence.