“[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Word became flesh.” This is not just a repeat of verse nine. Here John emphasizes the mode by which the Word came into the world. The Word had not just simply come into the world. He had done this before on many occasions as seen in the OT theophanies. Here, He is not merely appearing AS flesh as he did to Abraham in Genesis 18 and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This time he becomes flesh through the prenatal process. “Became flesh” must be recognized as a change of status. Such a change of status was not part of the previous theophanies. This is not just another theophonic manifestation, this is different. Now, the Word has become one of us. The Word was not simply transferred into the body of a man named Jesus to dwell in that body, rather, the Word himself became the man. This is a metamorphoses, not an indwelling. There is a transformation of form and substance. Every thought in chapter one is dedicated to this single proposition – “The Word became flesh.” This is the pivotal statement of John 1. Now, I am sure you will have questions regarding the idea of "only begotten" which I will explain later but in order to establish continuity for this discussion we need to begin with verse one. [/FONT][/FONT]
Jehova's Witness Beliefs?
- Thread starter oyster67
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
Hi Angela53510. I just wanted to comment on your thoughts on John 5:18 and Revelation 1:8.
In regards to John 5:18, I'm afraid I must disagree. It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God once in the bible. In verse 17 Jesus says “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” Because of that statement is the reason what was written, was written in verse 18.
As for Revelation 1:8, I'm a little confused why you think that the title LORD is automatically referring to Jesus. Before Jesus even came to earth in his fleshly form and took his role as the Messiah the scriptures refer to Jehovah God as LORD on different occasions. So that, in conjuction with what alpha and omega means, which means there is no God before him and no God after him, it's very simple to come to the conclusion that this verse couldn't possibly be speaking about anyone else besides Jesus Father Jehovah God.
As for Jehovah's Witnesses being polythiestic, the basic fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses according to the bible would leave any person aware we don't believe in multiple God's. Im curious as to why you think Jehovah's Witnesses are polythiestic?
In regards to John 5:18, I'm afraid I must disagree. It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God once in the bible. In verse 17 Jesus says “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” Because of that statement is the reason what was written, was written in verse 18.
As for Revelation 1:8, I'm a little confused why you think that the title LORD is automatically referring to Jesus. Before Jesus even came to earth in his fleshly form and took his role as the Messiah the scriptures refer to Jehovah God as LORD on different occasions. So that, in conjuction with what alpha and omega means, which means there is no God before him and no God after him, it's very simple to come to the conclusion that this verse couldn't possibly be speaking about anyone else besides Jesus Father Jehovah God.
As for Jehovah's Witnesses being polythiestic, the basic fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses according to the bible would leave any person aware we don't believe in multiple God's. Im curious as to why you think Jehovah's Witnesses are polythiestic?
Scripture gives us several helpful clues as to The God who occupies the Throne in Rev 4.
The description given to the Throne and the one sitting upon it is the same as previously given in Ezekiel (Eze. 1.26-28) and likewise is applied to Jesus in Revelation.
Ezekiel describes the one sitting upon the Throne as looking like a man and being called the Glory of Yahweh.
Daniel further elaborates on the Ancient of Days who occupies the Throne (Dan 7.9) and likewise is applied to Jesus in Revelation.
We are already told in Rev 3.21 that Jesus occupies the Father’s singular Throne, as thus…
The one overcoming, I will give to him to sitwith Me in My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father in His throne. (Rev 3.21)
ο νικων δωσω αυτω καθισαι μετ εμου εν τω θρονω μου ως καγω ενικησα και εκαθισα μετα του πατρος μου εν τω θρονω αυτου
Jesus has already ‘overcome’(ενικησα)aorist, past-tense verb.
And (και) …
Jesus has already ‘sat down’(εκαθισα) aorist, past-tense verb.
The Greek verbs utilized inform us that Jesus has already sat down with His Father upon the same singular Throne….this is exactly in keeping with scripture which has the Son in the identical image as the Father.
One Throne.
One God.
Thus....there can be no doubt that The Son is the one occupying the Throne in Rev 21, and that He is the One declaring to be Theos...
yes, 'Jah' is used as a contraction of God's name... and does appear in the greek scriptures.
so, let me be more specific... was the tetragrammaton in the original copies of the greek scriptures?
from your reasoning above, I assume you'll say it was there... so, next, do you agree that there are no extant ancient copies of the greek scriptures that contain it?
*****************************
here's some urls for The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever (I got the name wrong)
official:
Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, The (Brochure) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
I can't find the actual publication at the jw site, here's another link (probably a bootleg copy):
http://da-ip.getmyip.com:8080/pdf/1... Name That Will Endure Forever - brochure.pdf
so, let me be more specific... was the tetragrammaton in the original copies of the greek scriptures?
from your reasoning above, I assume you'll say it was there... so, next, do you agree that there are no extant ancient copies of the greek scriptures that contain it?
*****************************
here's some urls for The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever (I got the name wrong)
official:
Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, The (Brochure) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
I can't find the actual publication at the jw site, here's another link (probably a bootleg copy):
http://da-ip.getmyip.com:8080/pdf/1... Name That Will Endure Forever - brochure.pdf
L
I'm not going to disagree with the fact that Jesus is sitting on his throne now, because I do believe he is sitting on the throne now. However, the first verse in Revelation clearly distinguishes between who is giving the message and who the message originated from. The King James version says in Revelation 1:1"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him...". So the message in the book the of revelation was from God, and given to Jesus. Knowing this helps us to clarify that God is indeed the one sitting on the throne.
Considering Ezekiel 1:26-28, the LORD mentioned there is referring to God not his son. One reason is as I'm sure you already know is because of the fact that according to the tradition of using all capital letters to write LORD when substituting the tetragramaton, this was used in this instance when writing LORD. That needed to be done because lord was used in other instances aside from addressing God and Jesus.
From your statement it seems like you already know that Yahweh (YHWH) refers to God. And the reason as I'm sure you already know that the one sitting on the throne was described as looking like a man is because on many different occasions in the bible God and his qualities are described as human characteristics so that we as humans can understand and comprehend them. We don't know what spirit creatures look like or anything like that, so the bible lovingly describes them in that manner so we can comprehend better. My opinion is the same for Daniel 7:9.
As for Revelation 3:21, I have an explanation for that one as well,but I have a feeling it would be a moot point to get into that because that goes into our beliefs of only the 144,000 going to heaven and their role in heaven. To agree with my opinion on Revelation 3:21, you would have to agree with that first. If you want to discuss that bible based belief I would prefer it be in PM, only because that seems to be the only time I'm notified of responses and im having a hard time keeping up with this forum lol.
And just so I can see where you are coming from, do you believe in the trinity?
Considering Ezekiel 1:26-28, the LORD mentioned there is referring to God not his son. One reason is as I'm sure you already know is because of the fact that according to the tradition of using all capital letters to write LORD when substituting the tetragramaton, this was used in this instance when writing LORD. That needed to be done because lord was used in other instances aside from addressing God and Jesus.
From your statement it seems like you already know that Yahweh (YHWH) refers to God. And the reason as I'm sure you already know that the one sitting on the throne was described as looking like a man is because on many different occasions in the bible God and his qualities are described as human characteristics so that we as humans can understand and comprehend them. We don't know what spirit creatures look like or anything like that, so the bible lovingly describes them in that manner so we can comprehend better. My opinion is the same for Daniel 7:9.
As for Revelation 3:21, I have an explanation for that one as well,but I have a feeling it would be a moot point to get into that because that goes into our beliefs of only the 144,000 going to heaven and their role in heaven. To agree with my opinion on Revelation 3:21, you would have to agree with that first. If you want to discuss that bible based belief I would prefer it be in PM, only because that seems to be the only time I'm notified of responses and im having a hard time keeping up with this forum lol.
And just so I can see where you are coming from, do you believe in the trinity?
- We are told in the opening verse of the Book of Revelation that the Apocalypse is a Revelation that has been given from God, to Jesus Christ, and revealed unto His slave, John, through an Angel
- John records these verses confirming that the resurrected Jesus Christ is the one speaking to him, and telling him specifically to write down all things that he is about to encounter
- In the opening chapter of Revelation the signifying angel sent to John is referred to as God’s angel, via the usage of the genitive singular definite article “ho”
- In the closing chapter of Revelation, the signifying angel that is sent to testify to John is referred to as Jesus’ angel, via the usage of the first person nominative singular personal pronoun “ego” and the usage of the accusative singular masculine definite article, “ho”
- Further, we are informed that this same angel, which was sent to John, also belongs to the plural Spirits “pneuma”
- The angel sent to John is God’s angel
- The angel sent to John is Jesus’ angel
- The angel sent to John is Spirit’ angel
- Even though three Persons show ownership, this angel is sent out as one via the usage of the singular verb “apostello”
- Reinforcing the Biblical concept of the Holy Trinity, we have been told that this angel is from:
- Father
- Son
- Spirit
- The implications of this mandates that we have yet another Revelatory instance of the deity interchangeability that exists between God and Jesus
- John attempts to worship the angel that has been sent to deliver Jesus’ Revelation
- John is rebuked by Jesus’ angel for attempting to worship at his feet.In fact, John is rebuked twice in Revelation for attempting to worship Jesus’ angel
- The angel’s reply to John is that he must only worship God; and, as already witnessed in the beginning of Revelation, John did exactly that when he fell at the feet of the resurrected Jesus Christ.
- Confirming that Jesus is God
Actually, a careful study of Ezekiel provides the reader with an extremely potent argument FOR The Trinity, as thus...
We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:
- The Word (Eze 1.3)
- Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
- The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
- Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
- Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)
We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:
- The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
- The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
- The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
- The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
- We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
- Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)
We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:
- The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
- The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
- The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
- The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
- Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
- The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
- Yahweh is the Father
Hey bud. I'm just gonna jump in here with a piece of advice. Not really adding to the debate here.
When I converted from JW to Christianity (belief in Trinity) I felt like I was truly saved, had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and was on the path that Jehovah had been trying to nudge me into all along. I feel like the Father wants us to acknowledge the true divinity of His Son, Jesus, which I don't feel Jehovah's Witnesses ever did.
Kedge, there are two things that I would really like for you to do, because I think you will start to see things more clearly if you do so.
1. Pray. I prayed soooo much for Jehovah's direction when I had questions.
2. Look up how the New World Translation was translated. Look up how the Greek language works and how the authors of the NWT chose to translate Greek to fit pre-assumed doctrines and not what was originally written. This article kind of amazed me when I first read it. I kinda thought it was bologna at first....but then I confirmed the contents of it with other sources. It is correct my brother. I promise you. Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?
P.S. That entire site is gold btw.
When I converted from JW to Christianity (belief in Trinity) I felt like I was truly saved, had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and was on the path that Jehovah had been trying to nudge me into all along. I feel like the Father wants us to acknowledge the true divinity of His Son, Jesus, which I don't feel Jehovah's Witnesses ever did.
Kedge, there are two things that I would really like for you to do, because I think you will start to see things more clearly if you do so.
1. Pray. I prayed soooo much for Jehovah's direction when I had questions.
2. Look up how the New World Translation was translated. Look up how the Greek language works and how the authors of the NWT chose to translate Greek to fit pre-assumed doctrines and not what was originally written. This article kind of amazed me when I first read it. I kinda thought it was bologna at first....but then I confirmed the contents of it with other sources. It is correct my brother. I promise you. Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?
P.S. That entire site is gold btw.
Last edited:
But i still made that assertion.
A man can be a father and a son at the same time and in the same place and even in different places, but what the man can not be is the father and the son because it is physically impossible to be two seperate entities and be the same person at the same time, a father can never call himself his own son.
A man can be a father and a son at the same time and in the same place and even in different places, but what the man can not be is the father and the son because it is physically impossible to be two seperate entities and be the same person at the same time, a father can never call himself his own son.
It is physically impossible to....
Part a sea,
Wake up alive after dying,
Be possessed by MULTIPLE spirits at once,
Heal the blind.
All of which happen in the Bible.
Again, Jehovah's Witnesses make God a man and put limits of can/can't on Him. God can do/be this. God can't do/be this. You can't see God's true nature when you run Him through a human filter of cants, when you put Him into a box of limitations. God has no limitations. Nobody could ever tell God that He can't exist as three persons.
And Jesus would never say He's the Father's father. That doesn't make sense. Like I said before, the Trinity isn't the same thing as Oneness.
Part a sea,
Wake up alive after dying,
Be possessed by MULTIPLE spirits at once,
Heal the blind.
All of which happen in the Bible.
Again, Jehovah's Witnesses make God a man and put limits of can/can't on Him. God can do/be this. God can't do/be this. You can't see God's true nature when you run Him through a human filter of cants, when you put Him into a box of limitations. God has no limitations. Nobody could ever tell God that He can't exist as three persons.
And Jesus would never say He's the Father's father. That doesn't make sense. Like I said before, the Trinity isn't the same thing as Oneness.
In a very real spiritual sense, to be saved, to understand the staggering nature of God becoming a man, to show us who he really is, his desires, intentions, and his love, to deny Jesus being God, is to deny the Son and the Father.
It is a denial of the whole work, the fulfillment of the law, the split between justification by good works or justification from spiritual new birth. There is no greater difference, love conquers all.
But this love is anchored in the cross, in christ crucified, in the underpinning that your soul matters everything to the Father.
It took many years of walking with Jesus for him to break into me, to show me my hurts, my loneliness, my emptiness, my needs and meet them all. Each day he fills me anew, with unending love and power.
But the key is to understand who Jesus truly was, and because of that what this really means to you and me...
It is a denial of the whole work, the fulfillment of the law, the split between justification by good works or justification from spiritual new birth. There is no greater difference, love conquers all.
But this love is anchored in the cross, in christ crucified, in the underpinning that your soul matters everything to the Father.
It took many years of walking with Jesus for him to break into me, to show me my hurts, my loneliness, my emptiness, my needs and meet them all. Each day he fills me anew, with unending love and power.
But the key is to understand who Jesus truly was, and because of that what this really means to you and me...