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]

Here, we come again, Is Jesus words not sufficient to you? (Matt 26:63-64) Jesus acknowledged that He is the Son of man and the Son of God.

Now, this simple logic again I present to you of the same phrase;
1. Jesus as the Son of man, as His mother is human. Is He man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God, is He God or not? Why the honest logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why?

I thought this was rather comical Capbook!

I agree with the bold text.

How many time did Jesus call himself the Son of Man?
How many times did Jesus call himself the Son of God?
How many times did Jesus call himself God the Son?

I'll answer these for you is reply is lacking!

F2F

Do Jesus words insufficient to you if He say those words just once?
You change the topic again, how about answering the simple logic, logically, honestly and explicitly?

How many time did Jesus call himself the Son of Man?

"Son of man" approximately 80 times depending on the translation and how parallel passages are counted. This title appears most frequently in the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Breakdown: Matthew: ~30 times Mark: ~14 times Luke: ~25 times John: ~12 times

How many times did Jesus call himself the Son of God?

3–7 times directly by Jesus

How many times did Jesus call himself God the Son?

Zero - none - not once!

There is a wealth of knowledge to be gained by understanding why the title "Son of Man" was used so often, and why its so important even today.

Those who hold to the Trinity cannot know!

F2F

[face2face]

If you open your understanding to many verses that says Jesus is God, we can say that we really know Him in John 17:3. Even the Father had said to the Son, Your throne O God, is forever and ever, can a man have a throne that is forever and ever? If the Father's words not sufficient to you? How much more mine. If you do not believe the Father's words, how much more all others.

I'm beginning to notice which parts reflect your personal opinions, and how some verses are being twisted to support your Trinitarian doctrine.

Hebrew 1:8

There is some uncertainty as to the precise translation of this verse. Two possibilities exist:

"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (A.V.)

"God is thy throne for ever and ever" (R.S.V. margin)

Since only the first of these translations is useful for the Trinitarian, it is typically assumed that this is the correct rendering.

However, verse 9 clearly states:

"Therefore God, even thy God..." This is evidence that Christ is not the "Eternal Son." Since the Father is the God of Jesus, then clearly Jesus is not himself "Very God" (Have a look at John 20:17).

Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, in which the Hebrew word "elohim" is translated "God." This same word is used elsewhere in Scripture in ways that do not denote deity in a Trinitarian sense. For example:

In reference to Moses: "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god {elohim} to Pharaoh." (Exod. 7:1)

In reference to the judges of Israel: "I have said, Ye are gods..." (Psalm 82:6; cf. John 10:34; Exod. 22:9, 28)

These instances show that persons who are divinely appointed and strengthened by Yahweh are sometimes referred to as "God" (elohim), but this usage does not imply they are part of a triune Godhead.

What you are missing is God Manifestation and its importance in the lives of Gods Children. ie. He who has "seen" me has seen the Father. In other words its Jesus' Character which is representative of God and not the sins flesh he is trying to overcome!

Jesus has a God - end of discussion

F2F

[face2face]

It must be difficult for Trinitarians to continually interpret Scripture through a lens that isn't actually rooted in the Bible itself.

Imagine the wisdom which is lost to them?

F2F

[Capbook]

Here, we come again, Is Jesus words not sufficient to you? (Matt 26:63-64) Jesus acknowledged that He is the Son of man and the Son of God.

Now, this simple logic again I present to you of the same phrase;
1. Jesus as the Son of man, as His mother is human. Is He man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God, is He God or not? Why the honest logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why?

I thought this was rather comical Capbook!

I agree with the bold text.

How many time did Jesus call himself the Son of Man?
How many times did Jesus call himself the Son of God?
How many times did Jesus call himself God the Son?

I'll answer these for you is reply is lacking!

F2F

Do Jesus words insufficient to you if He say those words just once?
You change the topic again, how about answering the simple logic, logically, honestly and explicitly?

How many time did Jesus call himself the Son of Man?

"Son of man" approximately 80 times depending on the translation and how parallel passages are counted. This title appears most frequently in the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Breakdown: Matthew: ~30 times Mark: ~14 times Luke: ~25 times John: ~12 times

How many times did Jesus call himself the Son of God?

3–7 times directly by Jesus

How many times did Jesus call himself God the Son?

Zero - none - not once!

There is a wealth of knowledge to be gained by understanding why the title "Son of Man" was used so often, and why its so important even today.

Those who hold to the Trinity cannot know!

F2F

Again, you ignore to answer the simple logic I've presented, why Jesus cannot be God as the Son of God.
Thank you for confirming that Jesus acknowledged many times that He is Son of God and Son of man.
But you never posted even a single verse that say "Jesus is not God."

[Capbook]

I'm beginning to notice which parts reflect your personal opinions, and how some verses are being twisted to support your Trinitarian doctrine.

Hebrew 1:8

There is some uncertainty as to the precise translation of this verse. Two possibilities exist:

"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (A.V.)

"God is thy throne for ever and ever" (R.S.V. margin)

Since only the first of these translations is useful for the Trinitarian, it is typically assumed that this is the correct rendering.

It is not my opinion, many literal word for word Bible translations said so. Please find below;

(ABP+) But to G4314 G1161  the G3588  son, saying  G5207 G3588  Your throne, G2362 G1473  O G3588  God, G2316  into G1519  the G3588  eon G165  of the G3588  eon. G165  A rod G4464  of uprightness G2118  is the G3588  rod G4464 G3588  of your kingdom. G932 G1473 

(NAS95+) But of the Son G5207  He says, " R1 YOUR THRONE G2362 , O GOD G2316 , IS FOREVER G165  AND EVER G165 , AND THE RIGHTEOUS G2118  SCEPTER G4464  IS THE SCEPTER G4464  OF  N1 HIS KINGDOM G932 .

(NASB+) But regarding the Son G5207  He says, “ R1 YOUR THRONE G2362 , GOD G2316 , IS FOREVER G165  AND EVER G165 , AND THE SCEPTER G4464  OF RIGHTEOUSNESS G2118  IS THE SCEPTER G4464  OF  N1 HIS KINGDOM G932 .

(LSB+) But of the Son G5207  He says, “ R1 YOUR THRONE G2362 , O GOD G2316 , IS FOREVER G165  AND EVER G165 , AND THE SCEPTER G4464  OF UPRIGHTNESS G2118  IS THE SCEPTER G4464  OF  N1 YOUR KINGDOM G932 .

However, verse 9 clearly states:

"Therefore God, even thy God..." This is evidence that Christ is not the "Eternal Son." Since the Father is the God of Jesus, then clearly Jesus is not himself "Very God" (Have a look at John 20:17).

How many "God" mentioned on the verse? Two? Yes?
The first one referred to Jesus and the second one referred to the Father. That makes in context with verse 8, the Father said to the Son Jesus, thy throne O God.

Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, in which the Hebrew word "elohim" is translated "God." This same word is used elsewhere in Scripture in ways that do not denote deity in a Trinitarian sense. For example:

In reference to Moses: "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god {elohim} to Pharaoh." (Exod. 7:1)

In reference to the judges of Israel: "I have said, Ye are gods..." (Psalm 82:6; cf. John 10:34; Exod. 22:9, 28)

Yes, authors speaks of them in lower case "g", but there are no contentions that they are "God", only from the Arians to Jesus. If it did refer to the human king in Psa 45, where is the forever and ever throne of that human king in the New Testament?

These instances show that persons who are divinely appointed and strengthened by Yahweh are sometimes referred to as "God" (elohim), but this usage does not imply they are part of a triune Godhead.

Yes, they are not, but Jesus is.

What you are missing is God Manifestation and its importance in the lives of Gods Children. ie. He who has "seen" me has seen the Father. In other words its Jesus' Character which is representative of God and not the sins flesh he is trying to overcome!

Nothing in those verses that proves your point. The Bible and the Father explicitly speaks of Jesus as God. The Father said it, I believe you just don't believe the Father's words.

Jesus has a God - end of discussion.

If you believe that the Father's words no value to you at all. That will be your stand, we can't blame you.

[face2face]

I'm beginning to notice which parts reflect your personal opinions, and how some verses are being twisted to support your Trinitarian doctrine.

Hebrew 1:8

There is some uncertainty as to the precise translation of this verse. Two possibilities exist:

"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (A.V.)

"God is thy throne for ever and ever" (R.S.V. margin)

Since only the first of these translations is useful for the Trinitarian, it is typically assumed that this is the correct rendering.

It is not my opinion, many literal word for word Bible translations said so. Please find below;

(ABP+) But to G4314 G1161  the G3588  son, saying  G5207 G3588  Your throne, G2362 G1473  O G3588  God, G2316  into G1519  the G3588  eon G165  of the G3588  eon. G165  A rod G4464  of uprightness G2118  is the G3588  rod G4464 G3588  of your kingdom. G932 G1473 

(NAS95+) But of the Son G5207  He says, " R1 YOUR THRONE G2362 , O GOD G2316 , IS FOREVER G165  AND EVER G165 , AND THE RIGHTEOUS G2118  SCEPTER G4464  IS THE SCEPTER G4464  OF  N1 HIS KINGDOM G932 .

(NASB+) But regarding the Son G5207  He says, “ R1 YOUR THRONE G2362 , GOD G2316 , IS FOREVER G165  AND EVER G165 , AND THE SCEPTER G4464  OF RIGHTEOUSNESS G2118  IS THE SCEPTER G4464  OF  N1 HIS KINGDOM G932 .

(LSB+) But of the Son G5207  He says, “ R1 YOUR THRONE G2362 , O GOD G2316 , IS FOREVER G165  AND EVER G165 , AND THE SCEPTER G4464  OF UPRIGHTNESS G2118  IS THE SCEPTER G4464  OF  N1 YOUR KINGDOM G932 .

However, verse 9 clearly states:

"Therefore God, even thy God..." This is evidence that Christ is not the "Eternal Son." Since the Father is the God of Jesus, then clearly Jesus is not himself "Very God" (Have a look at John 20:17).

How many "God" mentioned on the verse? Two? Yes?
The first one referred to Jesus and the second one referred to the Father. That makes in context with verse 8, the Father said to the Son Jesus, thy throne O God.

Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, in which the Hebrew word "elohim" is translated "God." This same word is used elsewhere in Scripture in ways that do not denote deity in a Trinitarian sense. For example:

In reference to Moses: "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god {elohim} to Pharaoh." (Exod. 7:1)

In reference to the judges of Israel: "I have said, Ye are gods..." (Psalm 82:6; cf. John 10:34; Exod. 22:9, 28)

Yes, authors speaks of them in lower case "g", but there are no contentions that they are "God", only from the Arians to Jesus. If it did refer to the human king in Psa 45, where is the forever and ever throne of that human king in the New Testament?

These instances show that persons who are divinely appointed and strengthened by Yahweh are sometimes referred to as "God" (elohim), but this usage does not imply they are part of a triune Godhead.

Yes, they are not, but Jesus is.

What you are missing is God Manifestation and its importance in the lives of Gods Children. ie. He who has "seen" me has seen the Father. In other words its Jesus' Character which is representative of God and not the sins flesh he is trying to overcome!

Nothing in those verses that proves your point. The Bible and the Father explicitly speaks of Jesus as God. The Father said it, I believe you just don't believe the Father's words.

Jesus has a God - end of discussion.

If you believe that the Father's words no value to you at all. That will be your stand, we can't blame you.

You have a tendency to lean on verses with challenging translations, hoping they’ll support your complex doctrine.

You're the kind of person who might even argue with a committed Trinitarian who admits that Hebrews 1:8 doesn’t actually prove the Formula of the Trinity.

It's odd you refer to simplicity when most honest theologians claim complexity. Many more skilled than you believe the Trinity cannot be understood!

Do you want me to provide with quotes?

How many?

I could also include those who believe its a unknowable Mystery!

Here is the issue you are facing regarding Hebrews 1:8. The context focuses on contrasting the Son with the angels with respect to function over essence or being.

If Christ was fully known to be God, what is the point of contrasting the Creator with the Created? It's non sensical!

But if Christ was the Son of Man would such an exalted position be worthy of praise and contrast?

This sort of contrast between Jesus and the angels makes it less appropriate to address the son as God than to make comment on the eternality of his "new" reign.

The statement “your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever” (v. 8) makes the point that if the personal rule (throne) of the Son is eternal then the Son as ruler is thus likewise now eternal (pointing forward, not back!). The author addressed this eternal rule at strategic places using Ps 110:4 where the eternality of Melchizedek’s order of priesthood is applied to Jesus (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17). A priesthood which is not yet fully revealed in the earth!

Capbook, just imagine if Hebrews 1 wasn’t focused on the angels or on the throne Jesus now occupies, but instead was entirely about his nature—his supposed pre-existence and a return to some prior heavenly position.

Then you'd finally have the kind of evidence you’re looking for.

You don’t have that evidence—and yet you’ll fight tooth and nail to make it work. Even if it means twisting context, redefining words, and forcing meaning into every crevice of Scripture. You’ll squeeze that doctrine between every jot and tittle just to keep it alive. But the truth is, it’s dead. It has no pulse.

F2F

[servant1]

[Replying to Capbook in post #110]


You best look into the facts. Jerome removed Gods name by the orders of the Catholic leader=4th century. Possible left it in 8 spots=OT, But even before he translated he told the Catholic leader that Gods name belongs in the NT= every spot OT is quoted and the name belongs in OT. You see the altered versions you use mislead one into darkness.
The divine name kjv( 2015) used 3 non JW bible proving sights and found proof Gods name belongs in the NT at all those spots-Thus they put Gods name in the over 7000 places it belongs-over 200 spots=NT. Nearly 6800 =OT.
1)Scriptures by the institute for scriptural research
2)The Exegis by Herb Jahn
3)New Englishman's Hebrew concordance by George V. Wigram

Most outright refuse to be in error thus will not believe facts.

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #110]


You best look into the facts. Jerome removed Gods name by the orders of the Catholic leader=4th century. Possible left it in 8 spots=OT, But even before he translated he told the Catholic leader that Gods name belongs in the NT= every spot OT is quoted and the name belongs in OT. You see the altered versions you use mislead one into darkness.
The divine name kjv( 2015) used 3 non JW bible proving sights and found proof Gods name belongs in the NT at all those spots-Thus they put Gods name in the over 7000 places it belongs-over 200 spots=NT. Nearly 6800 =OT.
1)Scriptures by the institute for scriptural research
2)The Exegis by Herb Jahn
3)New Englishman's Hebrew concordance by George V. Wigram

Most outright refuse to be in error thus will not believe facts.

I have a resource that still mentions the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, the Scriptures 2009.
I can provide you a verse, see below.
But my point is where is the verse that Jesus taught His disciples/apostles to address the Father in His personal name?

Rev 19:1 And after this I heard a loud voice of a great crowd in the heaven, saying, “Halleluyah! Deliverance and esteem and respect and power to יהוה our Elohim!

[Capbook]

You have a tendency to lean on verses with challenging translations, hoping they’ll support your complex doctrine.

When you see word for word Bible translations, you will see it as challenging if you mostly based your belief on paraphrase translations that change Bible words.

You're the kind of person who might even argue with a committed Trinitarian who admits that Hebrews 1:8 doesn’t actually prove the Formula of the Trinity.

It first prove that Jesus is God.

It's odd you refer to simplicity when most honest theologians claim complexity. Many more skilled than you believe the Trinity cannot be understood!

I don't claim I'm skilled, I just quote Bible verses closed to the original languages.

Do you want me to provide with quotes?

How many?

I could also include those who believe its a unknowable Mystery!

Here is the issue you are facing regarding Hebrews 1:8. The context focuses on contrasting the Son with the angels with respect to function over essence or being.

If Christ was fully known to be God, what is the point of contrasting the Creator with the Created? It's non sensical!

I don't see Christ as a created being. (John 1:3)

But if Christ was the Son of Man would such an exalted position be worthy of praise and contrast?

This sort of contrast between Jesus and the angels makes it less appropriate to address the son as God than to make comment on the eternality of his "new" reign.

The statement “your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever” (v. 8) makes the point that if the personal rule (throne) of the Son is eternal then the Son as ruler is thus likewise now eternal (pointing forward, not back!). The author addressed this eternal rule at strategic places using Ps 110:4 where the eternality of Melchizedek’s order of priesthood is applied to Jesus (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17). A priesthood which is not yet fully revealed in the earth!

Yes, the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of Christ, and reign forever and ever.

Rev 11:15 Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.

Capbook, just imagine if Hebrews 1 wasn’t focused on the angels or on the throne Jesus now occupies, but instead was entirely about his nature—his supposed pre-existence and a return to some prior heavenly position.

Yes, Jesus prayed to the Father whom have the glory with the Father before the world existed.(John 17:5)

Then you'd finally have the kind of evidence you’re looking for.

You don’t have that evidence—and yet you’ll fight tooth and nail to make it work. Even if it means twisting context, redefining words, and forcing meaning into every crevice of Scripture. You’ll squeeze that doctrine between every jot and tittle just to keep it alive. But the truth is, it’s dead. It has no pulse.

Quite the contrary, Bible verses proves it, not my opinion.

[face2face]

You have a tendency to lean on verses with challenging translations, hoping they’ll support your complex doctrine.

When you see word for word Bible translations, you will see it as challenging if you mostly based your belief on paraphrase translations that change Bible words.

You're the kind of person who might even argue with a committed Trinitarian who admits that Hebrews 1:8 doesn’t actually prove the Formula of the Trinity.

It first prove that Jesus is God.

It's odd you refer to simplicity when most honest theologians claim complexity. Many more skilled than you believe the Trinity cannot be understood!

I don't claim I'm skilled, I just quote Bible verses closed to the original languages.

Do you want me to provide with quotes?

How many?

I could also include those who believe its a unknowable Mystery!

Here is the issue you are facing regarding Hebrews 1:8. The context focuses on contrasting the Son with the angels with respect to function over essence or being.

If Christ was fully known to be God, what is the point of contrasting the Creator with the Created? It's non sensical!

I don't see Christ as a created being. (John 1:3)

But if Christ was the Son of Man would such an exalted position be worthy of praise and contrast?

This sort of contrast between Jesus and the angels makes it less appropriate to address the son as God than to make comment on the eternality of his "new" reign.

The statement “your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever” (v. 8) makes the point that if the personal rule (throne) of the Son is eternal then the Son as ruler is thus likewise now eternal (pointing forward, not back!). The author addressed this eternal rule at strategic places using Ps 110:4 where the eternality of Melchizedek’s order of priesthood is applied to Jesus (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17). A priesthood which is not yet fully revealed in the earth!

Yes, the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of Christ, and reign forever and ever.

Rev 11:15 Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.

Capbook, just imagine if Hebrews 1 wasn’t focused on the angels or on the throne Jesus now occupies, but instead was entirely about his nature—his supposed pre-existence and a return to some prior heavenly position.

Yes, Jesus prayed to the Father whom have the glory with the Father before the world existed.(John 17:5)

Then you'd finally have the kind of evidence you’re looking for.

You don’t have that evidence—and yet you’ll fight tooth and nail to make it work. Even if it means twisting context, redefining words, and forcing meaning into every crevice of Scripture. You’ll squeeze that doctrine between every jot and tittle just to keep it alive. But the truth is, it’s dead. It has no pulse.

Quite the contrary, Bible verses proves it, not my opinion.

Take a moment to look back over those replies—are they really gaining strength with evidence, or are they weakening under closer inspection?

Hebrews 1 is clearly about the comparison between Christ and the angels. It reveals the awe-inspiring truth: that Christ, who was made lower than the angels, has now been exalted to a position never held before. That is the real wonder of Hebrews 1.

To force a triune dogma into this chapter would only diminish its meaning and strip away the beauty of what it truly reveals.

There is no dual nature presented in this chapter—or anywhere in the book of Hebrews, for that matter.

In fact, the very next chapter plainly sets out Christ’s nature and his qualifications to serve as High Priest: “the man Christ Jesus.” It couldn’t be clearer.

Remember the phrase "in every respect"?

Out of curiosity—are you aware of what the word every actually means?

Because if we were to apply your interpretation, we’d all end up with "hypostatic natures."

I've change the words to highlight your involvement in the text:

14 Since therefore Capbook shares in flesh and blood, he (Jesus) himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil (sin's power!) 15 and deliver Capbook who through fear of death is subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he (Jesus) helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he (Jesus) had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted
Heb 2:14–18.

Jesus was fully flesh and blood—born of a woman, born into the fallen line of Adam—and he perfectly represented mankind. I know you're aware that there's no duality in this section concerning the nature of Christ. I don’t need responses clouded by your confusion, contradiction or tradition. I believe in the true Christ and understand how God, His Creator, gained victory through His Son.

You don’t see it—and worse, you seem content to stay in that place of ignorance, even as time runs short.

It astounds me how simple the true Gospel is and how confusing you wish to make it.

F2F

Notice how it was through death God destroyed the devil - what has the power of death? How did God destroy sin in his Son (hint hint!)?