Jehovah's Witnesses and the Trinity Part 1

[SiNcE_1985]

.

No excuses, Jesus is God.

We are gonna deal with these Trinity-Proof texts, one by one....using Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) own New World's Translation, while I use the New King James Version (NKJV)...and we are gonna expose their faulty NWT, as needed.

For this thread, we will examine the following three books and verses..

Isa 40:3 – Mark 1:1-8 – Malachi 3:1

Lets begin with Isa 40:3..

Isa 40:3
NKJV Isa 40:3 ”The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.
NWT Isa 40:3 A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: “Clear up* the way of Jehovah! Make a straight highway through the desert for our God.

Now, as you can see, in comparison, both the NKJV and the NWT reads the same.

It is commanded that a clear path is made for God (Lord, Jehovah), because he is coming through!!

Ok, now, lets look at Malachi 3:1..

NKJV Mal 3:1 “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the Lord of hosts.

NWT Mal 3:1  “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up* a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.

Virtually the same message, the Lord is coming...and the path is being cleared for him.

The significance? This is a prophecy of the coming of Jesus....and this messenger who clears the path for him, is John the Baptist.

How do we know?

Because, in Mark 1:1-8...

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in [a]the Prophets:

“Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.”
3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’ ”

4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 7 And he preached, saying, “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

The implication is simple, Jesus is God.

Even in JW's own NWT Bible, it is said that the path (Isa 40:3) is being made clear for Jehovah/God.

The author of Mark connects the subject of the cleared path in the book of Isaiah (who is identified as Jehovah/God), to the subject of the path in his own book (who is identified as Jesus).

This is irrefutable evidence of the fact that; Jesus is God.

Anyone who has beef with this, let me know.

[face2face]

So what you are really saying is you cannot provide evidence to support your beliefs. John 1:18 neither proves the divinity or pre-existence of Jesus.

My beliefs are based on the presented evidence from papyri P66 and P75, that prove Jesus as the only-begotten God but you have not post any evidence to refute it. Regarding Jesus pre-existence, John 1:1,3 proves it. In the beginning He was with God, and not anything being created or come into existence, as without him was not anything made that was made.
John 1:3 John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Biblical Unitarian view of Jesus teaches that he was truly born of the Virgin Mary through the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), making him the literal Son of God (Luke 1:35). He grew up as a normal human child (Luke 2:52), faced temptations like any other person (Matthew 4:1-11), but, with the strength of his will (Matthew 16:23) and his close relationship with the Father, he overcame sin (Hebrews 4:15). Like us, he depended on the Father for his existence (John 6:57). Although capable of sin, he led a sinless life (1 Peter 2:21-22), died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:26-27), and was raised by the Father to immortality (Acts 2:22-24, Galatians 1:1).

Though I am not a Unitarian, I agree with this.

Note: Some assertive Trinitarians argue that Jesus could neither sin nor be tempted to sin. This represents a key point of divergence between the Biblical truth and the flawed doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus was tempted by Satan after baptism but did not fell to it.

In contrast, the Trinitarian view of Jesus presents a theological paradox and logical contradiction. He is described as visible while being invisible (Colossians 1:15), seen but also “never seen” (John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16). He is tempted, even though God cannot be tempted (Matthew 4:1-11; cp. James 1:13). He is “made like his brothers and sisters in every respect,” but in Trinitarian theology, this means he is not truly like them at all. He "dies" on the cross while remaining eternal (1 Timothy 1:17).

Jesus is the image of the invisible Father (Col 1:15), He was tempted in His human nature. For me Jesus is 100% human and 100%. Though in the form of God, He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men,
humbled himself, obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. (Phil 2:6-8)

Readers should reflect on which Christology is more consistent with the Biblical evidence. If the Trinitarian Jesus pre-existed, then he could not be the “son of David,” the “Son of Man,” or the “Son of God.” If he is God, then he was never tempted, cannot be seen, did not truly die, and therefore was not a real sacrifice for sin. And if his nature was simultaneously human and divine, he was not truly made like his brothers and sisters in every way.

Jesus was sent by the Father to give us hope of eternal life. (John 3:16) In human sinful nature, Jesus was tempted but overcame. What died was His flesh not His divine Spirit.

What you've done is rely on an outdated proof text in John 1:18, which has known issues, and twisted it to support a point it cannot make. Meanwhile, you've ignored the weight of evidence in these responses, leaving you with creed-based language and no Scriptural support for your views.

Well, I quoted it from Updated American Standard Version+. You have presented subjective evidence based on person's opinion and perspective, while I've presented objective evidence, facts that are verifiable.

Was Jesus genuinely tempted? Was he capable of sin? Trinitarianism is hopelessly divided on this issue.

Jesus was tempted but chose not to sin, remaining sinless throughout his earthly life, a crucial aspect of his role as the savior and the perfect sacrifice for humanity's sins.

You're cornered in a dilemma—if you say "Jesus could sin," then he cannot be God. However, if you say "Jesus couldn't sin," you unknowingly undermine the victory that was achieved through Christ. Either way, it's a self-made trap that only the Trinitarian can fall into.

Already answered, but again I'll explain, Jesus in his sinful human flesh, obtained from His mother,
was tempted in every way that we are, yet without sin. A perfect Lamb of God without blemish.

There are a lot of contradictions in your reply.

You claim that Jesus had a created life, yet also say that he is God. You assert that he could be tempted to sin, even though God cannot be tempted.

I'll leave it here for others to weigh in, as it's evident you haven't fully considered the issue enough to engage in a meaningful debate.

If you'd like to discuss the true nature of the Lord and how God achieved victory through it, feel free to reach out to me anytime.

F2F

[face2face]

For everyone else reading this thread, it's important to recognize that every effort by Trinitarians to impose their dogma and formula onto the text is a distortion of the original message.

In this instance Capbook has chosen to invest all her faith in John 1:18 and her preferred reading of the text as below.

John 1:18:

“No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.”

This translation is based on a particular manuscript choice that supports a Trinitarian reading. However, there are several Greek manuscripts for this verse, some of which leave no room for the deity of Christ. English Bibles have historically translated John 1:18 in various ways, depending on the manuscripts they use:

English Standard Version: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible: “No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son — the One who is at the Father’s side — He has revealed Him.”

Revised Version: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

New International Version: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”

The NET translators acknowledge in a footnote that this verse is controversial and difficult to translate. They discuss the textual problem of "μονογενὴς θεός" (monogenē theo, “the only God”) versus "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός" (ho monogenē huio, “the only Son”) as a notorious challenge. They provide various translation options and assess the evidence supporting each. Other translations similarly explain their reasoning for alternative renderings.

The phrase “only begotten God” is less commonly supported by modern Trinitarian scholars, as it is an ancient variant used by early church fathers and accepted by the Arian heretics of the 4th century AD. Arius believed that Jesus was not Almighty God, but merely “a god” distinct from God, and that his existence had a literal beginning, unlike the Father’s. Arius himself used the term “only begotten god” in his hymn Thalia, which discussed the Father and Son. As a result, “only begotten God” does not align well with traditional Trinitarian Christology.

Two prominent authorities have discussed the different interpretations of John 1:18: Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an evangelical theologian and grammarian (The Text and Grammar of John 1.18, 2004), and Prof. Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar and textual critic (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, 1993). Wallace, who is part of the NET translation committee, supports the translation found in the NET, while Ehrman favors “only begotten son.” Both scholars present compelling arguments, and readers are likely to gravitate toward the translation that aligns with their own Christology. It is widely acknowledged that all translations of this verse have inherent difficulties, regardless of the manuscript evidence, meaning it cannot be conclusively used as proof of Christ’s deity.

F2F

[Capbook]

For everyone else reading this thread, it's important to recognize that every effort by Trinitarians to impose their dogma and formula onto the text is a distortion of the original message.

In this instance Capbook has chosen to invest all her faith in John 1:18 and her preferred reading of the text as below.

John 1:18:

“No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.”

This translation is based on a particular manuscript choice that supports a Trinitarian reading. However, there are several Greek manuscripts for this verse, some of which leave no room for the deity of Christ. English Bibles have historically translated John 1:18 in various ways, depending on the manuscripts they use:

English Standard Version: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible: “No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son — the One who is at the Father’s side — He has revealed Him.”

Revised Version: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

New International Version: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”

The NET translators acknowledge in a footnote that this verse is controversial and difficult to translate. They discuss the textual problem of "μονογενὴς θεός" (monogenē theo, “the only God”) versus "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός" (ho monogenē huio, “the only Son”) as a notorious challenge. They provide various translation options and assess the evidence supporting each. Other translations similarly explain their reasoning for alternative renderings.

The phrase “only begotten God” is less commonly supported by modern Trinitarian scholars, as it is an ancient variant used by early church fathers and accepted by the Arian heretics of the 4th century AD. Arius believed that Jesus was not Almighty God, but merely “a god” distinct from God, and that his existence had a literal beginning, unlike the Father’s. Arius himself used the term “only begotten god” in his hymn Thalia, which discussed the Father and Son. As a result, “only begotten God” does not align well with traditional Trinitarian Christology.

Two prominent authorities have discussed the different interpretations of John 1:18: Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an evangelical theologian and grammarian (The Text and Grammar of John 1.18, 2004), and Prof. Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar and textual critic (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, 1993). Wallace, who is part of the NET translation committee, supports the translation found in the NET, while Ehrman favors “only begotten son.” Both scholars present compelling arguments, and readers are likely to gravitate toward the translation that aligns with their own Christology. It is widely acknowledged that all translations of this verse have inherent difficulties, regardless of the manuscript evidence, meaning it cannot be conclusively used as proof of Christ’s deity.

F2F

You quote agnostic's opinion?
Yes, that was proven on my responses to you that the original wordings were "the only-begotten God", and some variant readings for the "Son" on most paraphrase translations. The New English Translation (NET) is not a strictly word-for-word translation; it employs a "dynamic equivalence" or "thought-for-thought" approach, prioritizing conveying the meaning rather than adhering to a literal translation. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+new+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

The Westcott and Hort, "The New Testament in the Original Greek," rendered the text in support to the Divinity of Jesus.

[(Westcott and Hort) Jhn 1:18 θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

The NASB (New American Standard Bible) is known for its highly literal, word-for-word translation approach rendered the same text in support to Jesus as God.

(NASB+) Jhn 1:18  R1 No G3762  one G3762  has seen G3708  God G2316  at any G4455  time G4455 ;  R2 God G2316  the only G3439  Son, who is  R3 in the  N1 arms G2859  of the Father G3962 ,  R4 He has  N2 explained G1834  Him.

NRSV has been updated, with the NRSVUE (Updated Edition) incorporating recent scholarship and making further improvements to the translation. The NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is widely used in academic circles, particularly in universities and seminaries, due to its scholarly faithfulness to the original texts and its readability, making it a preferred translation for both study and teaching. Also speaks of Jesus as God.

(NRSVue+)Jhn 1:18 No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who N1  is close to the Father’s heart, N2  who has made him known. R11 

[face2face]

[Replying to Capbook in post #43]

No, it's all factual, easily proven from the accounts of many scholars more knowledgeable than yourself.

What you're experiencing is confirmation bias, where at some point you lost the ability to think objectively and instead chose to be self-deceived by a doctrine created by the minds of men and affirmed in their councils.

This is why you are struggling with the evidence I requested 2x now.

What’s also interesting is your unwillingness to acknowledge that there are other translations, and that the one you’ve chosen doesn’t actually prove deity or pre-existence.

I’m going to guess you’re the type of believer who relies on copying and pasting your gk, rather than addressing the many contradictions already shown you. Instead of engaging with those, you’ll continue to reference pp66 as if it alone defines your Trinitarian beliefs. It doesn’t.

A true Trinitarian, with whom I’ve debated many times, would never say "Jesus could be tempted and had the potential to sin." By saying this, you've diluted the Trinity to fit your own paradigm.

The very idea of Yahweh God sinning should fill you with fear, but it doesn't, because you have pp66

Well done!

F2F

[face2face]

For me Jesus is 100% human and 100%.

Let's test this knowledge.

Show me where the apostle Paul speaks to this duality of natures.

I'll provide you a passage which reveals the true work of God in Christ Jesus and you show me a similar passage explaining the two natures.

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, Ro 8:3.

If we take your position and understanding, we have God condemning sin in God.

Impossible in every way!

Let me ask you are question of Romans 8:3

Why was it essential Jesus be 100% man?

Now just in case you think to get creative with the word "likeness" as Trinitarians so often want to do, come over to Hebrews 2:17

Therefore he (Jesus) had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. Heb 2:17.

Why did God require a man raised up out of the fallen line of Adam? the Apostle Paul calls Jesus the second Adam! Why so?
Why was it absolutely essential for Jesus to be taken from among men to become a faith high priest?

To answer these two questions, you will need to leave your Trinity at the door before you enter the answers to these questions.

F2F

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #43]

No, it's all factual, easily proven from the accounts of many scholars more knowledgeable than yourself.

I post evidence, but I don't see yours.

What you're experiencing is confirmation bias, where at some point you lost the ability to think objectively and instead chose to be self-deceived by a doctrine created by the minds of men and affirmed in their councils.

I believe members of the GB are also human.

This is why you are struggling with the evidence I requested 2x now.

In this post I don't see one.

What’s also interesting is your unwillingness to acknowledge that there are other translations, and that the one you’ve chosen doesn’t actually prove deity or pre-existence.

As what I've already presented , original word used "God" vs various readings "Son." It proves, but you just don't accept it.

I’m going to guess you’re the type of believer who relies on copying and pasting your gk, rather than addressing the many contradictions already shown you. Instead of engaging with those, you’ll continue to reference pp66 as if it alone defines your Trinitarian beliefs. It doesn’t.

As for me, my opinion matter less. Evidence matters more, those are facts that are verifiable and are Bible words.

A true Trinitarian, with whom I’ve debated many times, would never say "Jesus could be tempted and had the potential to sin." By saying this, you've diluted the Trinity to fit your own paradigm.

If Jesus had no potential to sin, how would it be a good example for believers to emulate? It is for us to follow, sinful in nature as we are, but chose not to sin. Jesus had said, go and sin no more.

The very idea of Yahweh God sinning should fill you with fear, but it doesn't, because you have pp66

Well done!

You said it, I did not.

[face2face]

[Replying to Capbook in post #46]

Can you explain how your Jesus, being God, could be capable of sinning? Or do you, like many T believers, view Christ's sufferings as merely an illusion?

The burden of proof is on you, as I have clearly demonstrated the Lord’s true nature—that He is a created man, born of a woman, who experienced temptation and death.

We are told he died to sin once! God cannot die to sin

I also know that you don’t fully believe Jesus actually died, which creates yet another contradiction—one with serious consequences for both you and your hope.

F2F

Don't forget post #43 if you open those doors you will find the true Jesus!

[Capbook]

Can you explain how your Jesus, being God, could be capable of sinning? Or do you, like many T believers, view Christ's sufferings as merely an illusion?

Trinitarian believe Jesus has dual nature, being God and being man. Being man feel hungry and being God does not, about probability to sin, being God do not have that but being man just like us, being seeds of the fallen Adam, we are sinful in nature. Jesus in sinful nature in flesh obtained from Mary, was tempted but overcame. The best example for us to emulate.

The burden of proof is on you, as I have clearly demonstrated the Lord’s true nature—that He is a created man, born of a woman, who experienced temptation and death.

We believe Jesus is not a creation, John 1:3 proves that, and John 1:18 proves that He is the only-begotten God.

We are told he died to sin once! God cannot die to sin.

No, Jesus on earth bare our sins, for us to have hope for eternal life in faith.(John 3:16)

I also know that you don’t fully believe Jesus actually died, which creates yet another contradiction—one with serious consequences for both you and your hope.

On contrary, I believe Jesus (in flesh) actually died for us.(1Pet 3:18)

F2F

Don't forget post #43 if you open those doors you will find the true Jesus!

Ok, I'll look at it.
Post#43 was my reply to your Post#42.

[APAK]

[Replying to Capbook in post #40]

You have no evidence that stands up to any real rigor or test that Joh 1:18 is actually that non-Biblical Jesus as the 'only God' or 'only begotten God.' You are deluding yourself and hanging your belief of a Jesus based on the zeal of a copyist who miscopied it.

Most Bibles such as the KJV and RSV took the rare non-Trinitarian high road and omitted the 'God' word for Jesus and kept in the 'Son.' And by you believing this falsification in translation, you make John contra­dict himself and that it implies that Jesus is “the only God” to the exclusion of the Father as God. And that is a crazy thought! Your Trinity model of belief surely then falls..! And if you believe in a created/or only begotten/unique god for Jesus then your model falls down once again...

You like lexicons from your some of your previous posts I see...

Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon on monogenes rejects the “only be­got­ten God” reading for John 1:18 because it is incongru­ous with John’s way of thinking and may have been doctrinally motivated:

The reading monogenes theos (without the article before monogenes) in John 1:18, which is supported by no inconsid­erable weight of ancient testimony it is foreign to John’s mode of thought and speech (John 3:16,18; 1John 4:9). It is disso­nant and harsh — and appears to owe its origin to a dogmatic zeal which broke out soon after the early days of the church.

Yes, you keep on believing this lie and stay closed-minded to the real truth, worshipping your manu­scripts P66 and P75 that have obvious errs.

From an online source..
James F. McGrath, in his book, The Only True God: Early Christian Mono­theism in Its Jewish Context, makes some striking com­ments on John 1:18, including the observation that manu­scripts P66 and P75 (regarded by some as tipping the balance in favor of “the only begotten God”) contain evid­ence of trinita­rian influence. For example, both P66 and P75 delete the word “God” from John 5:44 to avoid saying that the Father is “the only God”; the Father is now simply “the only,” making it possible to include Jesus as God. P66 adds “the” to “God” in John 10:33 to make Jesus “the God” rather than “god” in the reduced sense of Psalm 82:6 (“you are gods”). Here is an excerpt from McGrath’s book:

The attestation of two early Alexandrian papyrus manuscripts of the Gos­pel, known as P66 and P75, is frequently given more weight than it deserves. P75 is indeed a very early text, but it frequently gives a reading which is generally ac­cepted to be in­ferior, and in a few instances shows signs of conscious add­itions or alterations having been made. Also signi­fi­cant is the agree­ment of these two manu­scripts in omitting the word God in John 5:44, which almost all scholars agree was part of the original text. Beasley-Murray regards this as accidental, but it may equally be the case that the scribes who copied these manu­scripts had difficulty refer­ring to the Father as the only God, since the Logos can also be spoken of as “God.” Also significant is that P66* adds the definite article before the word “God” in John 10:33. There are thus indi­cations that the copyists of these manuscripts had a particular the­ological view which their trans­cription reflects. Both of these manu­scripts preserve inferior readings in abundance … (p.65, footnotes omitted)

[face2face]

[Replying to Capbook in post #40]

You have no evidence that stands up to any real rigor or test that Joh 1:18 is actually that non-Biblical Jesus as the 'only God' or 'only begotten God.' You are deluding yourself and hanging your belief of a Jesus based on the zeal of a copyist who miscopied it.

Most Bibles such as the KJV and RSV took the rare non-Trinitarian high road and omitted the 'God' word for Jesus and kept in the 'Son.' And by you believing this falsification in translation, you make John contra­dict himself and that it implies that Jesus is “the only God” to the exclusion of the Father as God. And that is a crazy thought! Your Trinity model of belief surely then falls..! And if you believe in a created/or only begotten/unique god for Jesus then your model falls down once again...

You like lexicons from your some of your previous posts I see...

Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon on monogenes rejects the “only be­got­ten God” reading for John 1:18 because it is incongru­ous with John’s way of thinking and may have been doctrinally motivated:

The reading monogenes theos (without the article before monogenes) in John 1:18, which is supported by no inconsid­erable weight of ancient testimony it is foreign to John’s mode of thought and speech (John 3:16,18; 1John 4:9). It is disso­nant and harsh — and appears to owe its origin to a dogmatic zeal which broke out soon after the early days of the church.

Yes, you keep on believing this lie and stay closed-minded to the real truth, worshipping your manu­scripts P66 and P75 that have obvious errs.

From an online source..
James F. McGrath, in his book, The Only True God: Early Christian Mono­theism in Its Jewish Context, makes some striking com­ments on John 1:18, including the observation that manu­scripts P66 and P75 (regarded by some as tipping the balance in favor of “the only begotten God”) contain evid­ence of trinita­rian influence. For example, both P66 and P75 delete the word “God” from John 5:44 to avoid saying that the Father is “the only God”; the Father is now simply “the only,” making it possible to include Jesus as God. P66 adds “the” to “God” in John 10:33 to make Jesus “the God” rather than “god” in the reduced sense of Psalm 82:6 (“you are gods”). Here is an excerpt from McGrath’s book:

The attestation of two early Alexandrian papyrus manuscripts of the Gos­pel, known as P66 and P75, is frequently given more weight than it deserves. P75 is indeed a very early text, but it frequently gives a reading which is generally ac­cepted to be in­ferior, and in a few instances shows signs of conscious add­itions or alterations having been made. Also signi­fi­cant is the agree­ment of these two manu­scripts in omitting the word God in John 5:44, which almost all scholars agree was part of the original text. Beasley-Murray regards this as accidental, but it may equally be the case that the scribes who copied these manu­scripts had difficulty refer­ring to the Father as the only God, since the Logos can also be spoken of as “God.” Also significant is that P66* adds the definite article before the word “God” in John 10:33. There are thus indi­cations that the copyists of these manuscripts had a particular the­ological view which their trans­cription reflects. Both of these manu­scripts preserve inferior readings in abundance … (p.65, footnotes omitted)

It puzzles me how someone as intelligent as Capbook can overlook so many contradictions. Even more baffling is that they know they cannot prove duality, yet they accept it without question. One example of this contradiction is their belief that while the flesh of Jesus died, He continued to exist in some other capacity. However, the Bible is completely silent on this idea. It is a fabrication based on the assumption that Jesus is God, leading them to conclude that A must equal B without scriptural support. What this also means is that the person of Jesus did not truly die—only the facade did! Capbook knows this diminishes the reality of what actually happened, yet they are forced into this position to make it align with their man-made creed.

Ultimately we conclude they neither know the true Christ or His Father...a prerequites for "life enternal" as written in John 17:3.

If Capbook knew it was this serious a teaching you would think they would be more open minded to the evidence.

So far clearly not.

F2F