Search Related Sites

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

The Universe — Did It Come About by Chance or by Design?

Some people say: 'Yes, our universe is all a matter of chance.' Others, especially those who are religious, disagree. Still others are just not sure.

Whatever your view, you will no doubt agree that our Universe is a marvel. And it is clear to anyone who seriously studies astronomy that Earth seems tailor-made for life to exist. Some scientists admit to believing in God because of their observations of what appears to be a fine-tuning of our Universe in general. It is equipped with fixed physical laws and with natural constants that are precisely and ideally suited to support a planet like ours and all the life on it. (See links below.) 

Examining Entropy - The Universe Had to Have Been Born in a Highly Ordered State

Consider entropy. What is entropy? One dictionary describes cosmolgoical entropy as the "tendency for the Universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature". The following is a list of additional definitions of entropy from a collection of textbooks:

"A measure of energy dispersal at a specific temperature." [Atkins, Peter; Julio De Paula (2006). Physical Chemistry, 8th ed.. Oxford University Press.]

"A measure of disorder in the universe." [Gribbin's Encyclopedia of Particle Physics, 2000] 

In order to illustrate, consider a sandcastle. If there are a million different ways of arranging a handful of sand grains, with 999,999 of the ways producing disordered sand piles but only 1 producing a beautifully ordered castle, then if you keep throwing the sand grains up in the air, they will usually land in the form of a disordered pile. So, over time, if there is a force like the wind that acts to rearrange things, things will get more messy or disordered than ordered. This means that there is a difference between the past and the future: the past was more ordered and the future will be less ordered because this is the most likely way for things to play out. This is what Eddington meant by his statement that the future is more random than the past, and his description of the arrow of time as the thing that points in the direction of increasing randomness. And this is why entropy always increases. 

If you take a university physics degree this is what you will learn about entropy and the arrow of time - the past had a lower entropy than the future; ordered things become disordered as time ticks by, but one might legitimately ask where all the order in the universe came from in the first place. In the case of our sandcastle, it's obvious - a person made it - but how did the person get here? A person is very ordered. How did the Earth get here? It's very ordered too. And how did the Milky Way appear if it is composed of billions of ordered worlds orbiting around billions of ordered stars? There must have been some reason why the universe began in such a highly ordered state, such that it can gradually fall into place this way. The Universe began with sufficient order in the bank to allow planets, stars and galaxies to appear. We understand how gravity can create local order in the form of solar systems and stars, but this must be at the expense of creating more disorder somewhere else. So there must have been a lot of order to begin with. In other words, the Universe was born in a highly ordered state, and there should be a reason for that. It is unlikely to have been chance, because by definition a highly ordered state is less likely to pop into existence than a less ordered one; a sandcastle is less likely to be formed by the desert winds than a pile of sand. Since the Universe is far less ordered today than it was 13.75 billion years ago, this means it is far more likely that our universe popped into existence a billionth of a second ago, fully formed with planets, stars, galaxies and people, than it is that the Universe popped into existence at the Big Bang in a highly ordered state.

In summary, something had to have always existed in order for the physical universe to be here at all, whether it is God or an always-cycling Universe (which, in the case of the latter, does not seem to be possible because of entropy). But because the design of the Universe is so ordered and had to have begun in such a precise fashion, this lends significant evidence of a Designer. As the Bible stated the obvious millenia ago:

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Heb. 3:4)

Additional Reading:

The "Impossible" Universe (Search For Bible Truths)

Why Do Some Scientists Believe in God? (Search For Bible Truths)

Is It Unscientific to Believe in God? (g04 6/22 pp. 3-4; Watchtower Online Library)

Our Awesome UNIVERSE - A Product of Chance? (g00 10/8 pp. 3-4; Watchtower Online Library)

Did the ELEMENTS Come About by Chance? (g00 10/8 pp. 5-7; Watchtower Online Library)

THE EARTH - Was it “Founded” by Chance? (g00 10/8 pp. 8-11; Watchtower Online Library) 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Why did Thomas say "My Lord and my God" at John 20:28?

Even the TRINTIARIAN NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this Scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son OF God, [NOT GOD] so that the readers may believe in him.”

The context of John 20:24, 25, and 29 shows that Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. Jesus’ statements before and after Thomas’ exclamation (“my Lord and my God!”) show not only that Jesus wanted Thomas to believe that he had been resurrected to life but that he could not possibly be God.

Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same person you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (NOT, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).

Notice that the reason given for Thomas to “be believing” is that he can see Jesus’ hands and their wounds. Likewise, after Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” Jesus reaffirms that Thomas now believes (as did the other disciples after seeing - Jn.20:20) that Jesus has been resurrected (NOT that he is God) “because you have seen me” (:29)

John himself has made it manifestly clear that “no one [no human] has ever seen God” - 1 John 4:12, RSV.

If Thomas' statement truly meant that he believed that Jesus was God, surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t). So how does John summarize this incident? - “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is THE CHRIST, the Son OF God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

This may be, then, one of those places where the idioms of an ancient language are not completely understood by modern translators.

As the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p. 25, puts it:

"And it is not certain that even the words Thomas addressed to Jesus (Jn. 20:28) meant what they suggest in the English Version." - (Britannica article by Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., D.D. Dunn Professor of New Testament, Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge.)

For MUCH more, see:

MY GOD (Examining the Trinity)

John 20:28 ("'My Lord and MY GOD'") (Defending the NWT)

Why did Thomas exclaim when seeing the resurrected Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”? (g05 4/22 pp. 8-9; Watchtower online Library)

Does Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God? (rs p. 209-p. 220; Watchtower online Library)

What did Thomas mean when he said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God”? (Insight-2 pp. 52-72; Watchtower online Library)

Why did the apostle Thomas exclaim "My Lord and my God!" at John 20:28? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Trinity 'Proof Texts' (Examining the Trinity)

Trinity Index (Examining the Trinity)

Saturday, July 20, 2013

VIDEO - Jehovah's Witnesses World Headquarters Preview

Published on [Youtube] Sep 15, 2012 -

"This video are featured on the new website. See the area in upstate New York where we are planning to relocate our world headquarters. In July 2009, Jehovah's Witnesses purchased a plot of land in upstate New York with plans to relocate their world headquarters. The 102-hectare (253 a.) property is located about 80 kilometers (50 mi) northwest of the existing facilities in Brooklyn, New York, where they have been since 1909.

"Some 800 Witnesses will live and work at the new facility, which will include an office building, a services building, and four residence buildings. A modest museum documenting the modern-day history of Jehovah's Witnesses is also planned.

"The facility will take up 18 hectares (45 a.) of the purchased property, leaving the surrounding forest and wetlands undeveloped. The landscaping will not include any large lawn areas. Instead, it will harmonize with the site's wooded location.

"Architects have designed the buildings to be energy efficient and to conserve resources, which will result in minimal environmental impact and low operating costs. For example, the roofs of the buildings will be covered with hardy, low-maintenance plants, both to decrease the runoff of rain and to stabilize temperatures inside the buildings. The office design takes advantage of natural light for illumination. Water conservation is also a priority."

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Scholars' Quotes Concerning Jesus as Michael the Archangel

From early Christian writings until now there have been many who understood Michael to be the archangel who became Jesus on earth. (For much more on the subject, see the ARCHANGEL category or use the search box above.)

Early Christian scholar Origen writes:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.

Back in the early 1800's, Bible scholar Joseph Benson stated that the description of Michael as found in the Bible "manifestly points out the Messiah." 
Nineteenth-century Lutheran E. W. Hengstenberg agreed that "Michael is no other than Christ."

Similarly, theologian J. P. Lange, when commenting on Revelation 12:7, wrote: "We take it that Michael . . . is, from the outset, Christ in warlike array against Satan."

Clarke’s Commentary (Adam Clarke)

Jude :9

“Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels.  The word Michael  lakym, seems to be compounded of ym mi, who, k ke, like, and la El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Revelation

“12:7 And there was war in heaven: 14 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

“(14) Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod….”
John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 7 Chapter 5:

“1b2. Another prophecy in Daniel 12:1-3 respects the second and personal coming of Christ; for he is meant by Michael, who is "as God", as his name signifies, equal to him; the ‘great prince,’ the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers.”

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Daniel 12:1

“Ver. 1.

And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;”

And even trinitarian Bible scholar W. E. Vine (“recognized as one of the world’s foremost [Bible] Greek scholars”) tells us that this “voice of the archangel” (1 Thess. 4:16) is apparently “the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ”! - p. 64, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel” – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

John Wesley:

Chapter XII

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13. For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

Wesley on Daniel 10:21: "Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it."

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758):

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, “Angels”:

“II. When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of the angels after him, Christ, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace the elect angels from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved from eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels, for though he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. The elect angels joined with him, the glorious Michael, as their captain, while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined with him, and then was that literally true that was fulfilled afterwards figuratively.

Rev. xii. ‘When there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.’ ”

William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:

There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.
"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, [the Word - the Son of God] has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage." —Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible

on the words 'Michael' and 'Angel' says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.
Wood's Spiritual Dictionary

teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist.

Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.

Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.


Highly respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:

"The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son." - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.

And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was

"a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56]." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.

"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982

"Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.

"ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.

"The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

John 1:1 - Numerous Links to Information Regarding "a God"

Click on any link to view much more information concerning John 1:1:

Was the Word “God” or “a god”? (w08 11/1 pp. 24-25; Watchtower Online Library)

"The Word Was God" (bh p. 201-p. 204 par. 2; Watchtower Online Library)

“Those Who Are Called ‘Gods’” (g05 4/22 pp. 8-9; Watchtower Online Library)

Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Understand John 1:1 to Read, "...and the Word Was a god"? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

In Defense of the New World Translation. John 1:1 files

John 1:1 - A Number of Trinitaran Translations and Scholars Admit "a god" (Defending the NWT)

Defending the charge that the NWT translators made up a rule for the word for "God/god" (theos). (Defending the NWT)

How does the Coptic text render John 1:1? (VIDEO AT BOTTOM OF POST; SFBT)

The Coptic Language and John 1:1 (Search For Bible Truths)

John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was a god." (Search For Bible Truths)

John 1:1 "and the Word was" (Pastor Russell)

"and the Word was divine." (Pastor Russell)

Should John 1:1 read: "And the Word was divine"? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

"and the word was with (pros) God."  (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

John 1:1c Primer (Examining the Trinity)

DEFinite John 1:1c (Examining the Trinity)

Harner's JBL 'Qualitative' Article (Examining the Trinity)

HARNER: JBL 'Qualitative' Article Refuted (Examining the Trinity)

QUAL ("Qualitative" John 1:1c) (Examining the Trinity)

SEPTGOD (John 1:1c and the Septuagint) (Examining the Trinity)

Logos (The 'Word') (Examining the Trinity)

In Defense of the New World Translation. John 1:1 files (In Defense of the New World Translation)

VIDEO: John 1:1 Part 1 and Part 2 (Search For Bible Truths)

John 1:1 was examined by Origen in his "Commentary on John." (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

IF God is a trinity, then how is it that “the Word (Jesus) was WITH God”? (John 1:1) (Search For Bible Truths)

Is the New World Translation the only Bible to phrase John 1:1c as "the Word was A God"? (Search For Bible Truths)

NWT - John 1:1 (Defending the NWT)

"Was" and "Beginning" in John 1:1 (Examining the Trinity)

If Jesus is not God, how can he be a god? (Search For Bible Truths)

God and gods - What is a god and who have been called 'gods'? (Search For Bible Truths)

Video: "Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism - The Early use of "God" and the Christological Implications" (Search For Bible Truths)

God and gods (from BOWGOD study) (Examining the Trinity)

Was the Word “God” or “a god”? (Pastor Russell)

If the Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3), does that mean that Jesus is a false god? (Search For Bible Truths)

Why is Jesus called "Mighty God" at Isa. 9:6? (Search For Bible Truths)

The Holy Trinity (Pastor Russell)

They call me Trinity (Pastor Russell)

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Does the 11/97 'Our Kingdom Ministry' Article "Good News on the Internet" Actually PROHIBIT Jehovah's Witnesses from "Prepar(ing) Internet Pages" or Witnessing Online?

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses love to use the quote found in the 11/97 'Our Kingdom Ministry' Article "Good News on the Internet".

The specific part of the quote in question is as follows:

"The purpose of our Web site [the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses] is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. THERE IS NO NEED for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs. - Our Kingdom Ministry; November 1997, p. 3 "Good News on the Internet" (Emphasis mine)

The Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses have made "information available to the public in electronic format." But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a direct prohibition on anyone who would also desire to make "information available to the public in electronic format." The wording "there is no need" means exactly what it says - that additional information posted on-line concerning Jehovah's Witnesses is NOT NECESSARY when one can simply refer an interested one toward the relevant article already available at the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses pertaining to the topic at hand. What better place to refer interested ones than to the Official or Authorized Websites of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves?

One thing about the internet is the problem of anonymity. I have seen many websites that claim to be favorable toward Jehovah's Witnesses but were actually set up by apostates looking to fool unsuspecting ones. If one wishes to not fall for this trap, then they should by all means always stick to what they know they can depend on - the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Because the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does not have any control over the content of other websites on the internet, it is very understandable that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does not want to be associated in any way with unauthorized websites, favorable or unfavorable. With this in mind, the managers of several pro-Witness websites (including this one) have posted the following disclaimer (or wording like it):

"This website is NOT an official website of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

"This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible for the content found on this blog/website.

"Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research.

"To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at"

This is the chosen best answer by Elijah to a question on Yahoo Answers.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Absurd Examples Of Trinitarian 'Reasoning'

"Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor... in the Old Testament." - The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Micropedia, vol. 11, p. 928.

Trinitarians themselves admit that "The an INFERRED doctrine, gathered ECLECTICALLY from the entire Canon". - page 630 of the highly trinitarian publication, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publishers, 1982

Not only is the word 'trinity' not found in the Bible, but the doctrine itself is nowhere to be found. Couple this with the fact that it is also beyond logical reasoning for 1+1+1 to =1. It is beyond logical reasoning for three or even two persons to actually be the same person. It is beyond logical reasoning for a "father" and a "son" to be the same person. Scripture does not allow for such a view of God: "God is not a God of confusion." -1 Corinthians 14:33 (RSV)

Because of this, the “proof” offered by trinitarians is always specious, vague, and/or ambiguous. So Trinitarians are forced to rely on a certain type of 'reasoning'. Yes, by employing Trinitarian's exact same 'reasoning', with a little research and imagination, many others in the Bible can also be rationalized as being God! Below are but a few examples:

Moses is said to be god to Pharaoh and Aaron. (Ex. 4:16, Ex. 7:1)

Paul said "I am" twice. (1 Cor. 15:10)

How about picking any one of Jesus' believers since his believers are supposed to be one as Jesus and his Father are one? (John 17:11, 22)

How about the judges in Israel since Jesus used them being called gods in his defense when they thought he was saying that he was god? (John 10:34-36; Psalms 82:6)

How about Luke 9:26 (which actually says, "when [Jesus] comes in the glory [singular] of him [Jesus] and of the Father and of the holy angels")? Paraphrasing a trinitarian's case for Mt. 28:19, Luke 9:26 is also "first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single [glory], and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article." But, here, of course, the angels, too, make up the "trinity." We have, then, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy angels!

How about Othniel or Ehud since God sent them as savior in the past? (Judges 3:9,15)

How about one of the apostles since they were authorized to forgive sins? (John 20:20-23)

How about one of Jesus followers as the King James shows that they will receive worship? (Rev 3:9; Luke 14:10)

How about the blind beggar? At John 9:9 the blind beggar that Jesus healed said "ego eimi", or I am.

(For many more ridiculous and comprehensive examples of this, look in the DAVID, REDEF and TRIN-TYPE study articles.)

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX