6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[jimmydiggs]

God and God.

God the Father, and God the Son.

Sorry, forgot to answer the one about Solomon's Temple.

By literally built, do you mean who laid the brick and mortor?

 

[jimmydiggs]

@TJ12

I am in a university library, and need to go back to my dorm room. When I left my room two hours ago there was no internet available, so this might be the last post unless it is up and running. Even if it is, I have some materials I need to read for Big Brothers Big Sisters that I might take care of tonight.

Thank you thus far for your interaction.

 

[TJ12]

God the Father, and God the Son.

I agree it's messianic, but you really don't think it had its original fulfillment in Solomon? Further on in the chapter it reads of this one: "daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir," and "In place of your fathers shall be your sons; you will make them princes in all the earth."

This is important because if a scripture originally having application to Solomon can be used towards Jesus, then the same should hold true for a scripture originally having application to God.

I have taken these verses from the NWT. Click for source.


Psalm 102:24-28
24I proceeded to say: “O my God,
Do not take me off at the half of my days;
Your years are throughout all generations.
25Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.
26They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep standing;
And just like a garment they will all of them wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn.
27But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed.
28The sons of your servants will continue residing;
And before you their own offspring will be firmly established.”

Hebrews 1:8-12
.”8But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.9You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.”10And: “You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands.11They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old,12and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out.”

Even the NWT Recognizes that Psalm 45 is speaking of both the Father and the Son.

Here's the flaw in your reasoning. What is said of Jehovah God in Psalms is indeed taken and applied to Jesus in Hebrews. But saying person X did action Z and person Y did action Z does not make person X person Y.

You missed my question about who actually built Solomon's Temple (and really his palace, gardens, etc). Solomon himself says he built these things with 'his hands' (Ecclesiastes 2:11), yet we know he conscripted thousands to do the work. They too could say truthfully that they built these things with their hands. Both statements are true, yet that doesn't make any one of the conscripted workers the king, does it?

Take another example. I remember hearing the news saying President Bush invaded Iraq. Does that mean that the president literally went charging across the border with the secret service all around him? Did anyone understand that statement to mean that? Or did he invade by means of the military under his command? Similarly God made everything, but it was through his Son. Paul makes this explicit at 1 Corinthians 8:6, saying everything is from the Father and everything is through the Son. One is the source, the other is the agent or representative. The statement is true of both, but it doesn't make them the same individual/being.

 

[TJ12]

So he knew it wasn't God. If he knew it wasn't God, then you don't have a point to stand on regarding Doubting Thomas.

Jimmy, if Manoah could knowingly call an angel "God", not because he actually thought he was God himself, but because he recognized the angel as God's representative, then by the very same logic Thomas could call Jesus "God" simply on the basis of him being sent by God. (John 3:17) This should be fairly straightforward.

In answer to my question about who it was that approached and spoke to Jesus at Matthew 8:5-13, you said:

5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant,[a] ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel[b] have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

A Centurion it appears.

And this proves my point. You are actually, technically incorrect. Take a read through Luke's more detailed account of this same event:

After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 Now a centurion had a servant who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him. 3 When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, 5 for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” 6 And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” 10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well. (Luke 7:1-10)

Both accounts are accurate, but Matthew simply refers to the centurion's representatives as the centurion himself. This is extremely common in scripture, and so we find representatives of God, and especially his foremost representative, Jesus Christ, often referred to in the same sense.

Thus, when scripture says God did X, and elsewhere, Jesus did X, this is not proof that Jesus is necessarily God.

 

[TJ12]

Hello, thanks for your response. Just so you know I am not ignoring you, I am a little busy today (and tonight) but I will be answering your questions and statements tomorrow. thanks again, talk to you soon

Thank you very much, sir. If it doesn't cause you too much trouble, I have a question for you.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that when Jesus is called "the firstborn of creation" at Colossians 1:15, this means he's literally the firstborn of creation. How is it that you don't take this as proof positive that Jesus is the first creature?

 

[feedm3]

Thank you very much, sir. If it doesn't cause you too much trouble, I have a question for you.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that when Jesus is called "the firstborn of creation" in Colossians 1:15, this means he's literally the firstborn of creation. How is it that you don't take this as proof positive that Jesus is the first creature?

In Jewish custom (and many more around the world) the "first born" was higher in rank, and would be the one to inherit the father's possessions.

The "first born of all creation" means, the highest in rank above all in heaven and in earth. It does not mean that he was made first, and then everyone else.

It is the same message Paul gives in Philippians:

Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

The term is used to covey preeminence. In the same chapter Col we have the phrase he is the "firstborn of the dead".

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Do you think that he was the first to be raised from the dead? What about Lazarus, and all the others we read of?

Speaking of David:
89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
Psa 89:21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
Psa 89:22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
Psa 89:23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
Psa 89:24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
Psa 89:25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
Psa 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
Psa 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

JW's usually say when verse 26 is bought out, if this is concerning Christ, why is he calling his Father God?

Then they say, "no this is David saying this".

So then lets point out 27. David is said to be made "my firstborn". If my firstborn means chronological order, then David could not have had any older brothers.

So then we see, their must be a misinterpretation of Col 1:15 on the JW side, because it leads to bizarre conclusions in the remote context.

 

[teuful_hunden]

Jimmy Diggs you are my hero. WE LOVE YOU JIMMMMMYYYYY!!!!

 

[feedm3]

@Tj12

The Verse 26 JW argument may not make sense in with the translation I used, this was from the argument I had with another person who wanted me to post this thread, concerning those passages in Psalms, i get people confused and cross arguments, sorry about that. You can ignore that part, I know not all JW use that with verse 26.

 

[feedm3]

More on JW proof texts:

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1. If "only true God" means ONLY the Father.

2. And if Jesus is "a god"

3. Then this passage is calling Jesus a false god.

Next:

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1. If "one God" excludes Jesus from being God, the "one Lord" excludes God from being Lord.

Then what about the 100's of passages calling the Father Lord?

If "only true God" in John 17:3 can ONLY mean the Father because of the word "ONLY" then this would mean:

1. Christ cannot be called savior: Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

"beside me there is no" would exclude Jesus from being savior sense the Father said their is none beside him. see also Isa 43:21, Hos 13:4, and Jude 25.

2. Jesus is called the "Only Teacher, (Matt 23:8,10, Mt 10:24 and Jn 13:13), "Only Master" (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1), and "Only Lord" (Jude 4, Eph 4:4, 1 Cor 8:4,6, Mt 6:24).

If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then the Father is also excluded from being our Teacher, Master or Lord.

 

[GreenNnice]

What do you make of these verses?

I and the Father are one.

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. John 5:21

What do you make of John 14:16 ?

"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever."

in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.'

English Standard Version (©2001) “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’?

New American Standard Bible (©1995) 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET "'?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

International Standard Version (©2008) 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet."'?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010) 'THE LORD JEHOVAH said to my Lord, 'sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet'?

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Take the highest position in heaven until I put your enemies under your control."'

King James 2000 Bible (©2003) The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool?

American King James Version The LORD said to my Lord, Sit you on my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool?

American Standard Version The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet?

Douay-Rheims Bible The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?

Darby Bible Translation The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand until I put thine enemies under thy feet?

English Revised Version The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet?

Webster's Bible Translation The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool?

Weymouth New Testament "'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at My right hand until I have put thy foes beneath thy feet'?

World English Bible 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?'

Young's Literal Translation The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The Lord said ... - This is the language of David.

"Yahweh said to "my" lord "the Messiah" - sit thou," etc. This was a prediction respecting the exaltation of Christ. To be raised to the right hand of a king was significant of favor, trust, and power. See the notes at Matthew 20:21. This was done respecting Christ, Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12. "Thine enemies thy footstool." A footstool is that which is under the feet when we are sitting implying that we have it under subjection, or at our control. So, Christ shall put all enemies under his feet - all his spiritual foes - all that rise up against him, Psalm 2:9, Psalm 2:12; Hebrews 10:13; 1 Corinthians 15:25.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

The Lord (יהוה Yeve or Jehovah) said unto my Lord, אדניע Adni or Adonai, my prop, stay, master, support), Sit thou on my right hand - Take the place of the greatest eminence and authority. Till I make thine enemies thy footstool - till I subdue both Jews and Gentiles under thee, and cause them to acknowledge thee as their sovereign and Lord. This quotation is taken from Psalm 110:1; and, from it, these two points are clear:

1. That David wrote it by the inspiration of God; and

2. That it is a prophetic declaration of the Messiah.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Lord said unto my Lord,.... By the Lord that said, is meant "Jehovah" the Father, who said the following words at the time of Christ's ascension, and entrance into heaven, after he had finished the great work of man's salvation; prophetically delivered by the Psalmist, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, being what was before purposed and promised: by "my Lord", the person spoken to, the Messiah is designed, who was David's "Adon", or Lord, by right both of creation and redemption: as God, he made him: and as the Messiah and Saviour, redeemed him; and on both accounts had a right to rule over him. The words said unto him are,

sit thou on my right hand; which is a figurative phrase, and expressive of the exaltation, dignity, power, and authority of the Messiah; and of an honour done to him, which was never granted to the angels, nor to any mere man:

till I make thine enemies thy footstool; till all the enemies of him, and his people, are subdued under him; carnal professors, as the Pharisees, and profane sinners, who neither of them would have him to rule over them; the world, the devil, antichrist, and all the powers of darkness, and the last enemy, death itself. That these words were spoken of the Messiah, and therefore pertinently cited, and properly applied to him, by Jesus, is evident from the silence of the Pharisees; for had it not been the generally received sense of the Jewish church, they would, at once, have objected it to him; which might, in some measure, have relieved them under that distress, into which they were brought by this passage proposed unto them: but by their silence they acknowledged, that the Psalm was wrote by David; that it was wrote by him under the inspiration of the Spirit of God; and that the Messiah was the subject of it. And the same is owned by some of their doctors, ancient, and modern,

"Says R. Joden, in the name of R. Chijah, in time to come the holy blessed God will cause the king Messiah to sit at his right hand; as it is said, "the Lord said unto my Lord", &c. (f).

And the same says, R. Berachiah, in the name of R. Levi, elsewhere (g). And, says, another of their writers (h),

"we do not find any man, or prophet, whose birth was prophesied of before the birth of his father and mother, but Messiah our righteousness; and of him it is intimated, "from the womb of the morning", &c. i.e. before the womb of her that bore thee was created, thy birth was prophesied of: and this these words respect, "before the sun, his name is Yinnon", Psalm 72:17 i, e. before the creation of the sun, the name of our Messiah was strong and firm, and he shall sit at the right hand of God; and this is what is said, "sit at my right hand".

In some writings of the Jews, esteemed by them, very ancient (i), the "Adon" or Lord, to whom these words are spoken, is interpreted of Messiah ben Joseph, whom they make to sit at the right hand of Abraham; which, though a false interpretation of the words, carries in it some marks and traces of the ancient sense of them: yea, even some of the more modern Jews (k) have owned, that they belong to the Messiah, and apply them to him. Though others, observing what confusion their forefathers were thrown into by Jesus, and what improvement his followers have made of this sense of the words since, have quitted it, and introduced strange and foreign ones. Some (l) of them would have Abraham the patriarch to be the subject of this Psalm; and that it was composed either by Melchizedek or by Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; or by David, on account of the victory Abraham obtained over the four kings, in rescuing his kinsman Lot: but Melchizedek could not be the author of it, because he was a far greater person than Abraham; he blessed him, and took tithes of him, and therefore would not call him Lord. Eliezer might indeed, as being his servant; but then he could not assign to him a seat at the right hand of God, or say of him, that he had an everlasting priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek: and though the Psalm was composed by David, yet not on the above account, for the same reasons. Nor is David the subject of it, as others (m) have affirmed; for it cannot be thought that David would say this of himself, or call himself his Lord, which this sense of the words makes him to do: and whereas others of them say, that it was wrote by one of the singers concerning him; it may be replied, that the title declares the contrary: besides, David is not ascended into heaven, nor is he set down at the right hand of God, nor had he any thing to do with the priesthood, much less was he a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and that for ever: but all is true of the Messiah Jesus, of whose kingdom and priesthood, sufferings, and exaltation, conquest of his enemies, and success of his Gospel, this whole Psalm is a very plain and manifest prophecy.

(f) Midrash Tillira in Psal. xviii. 35. apud Galatin. de Cath. ver. arcan. l. 8. c. 24. (g) R. Moses Hadarsan in Genesis 18.1. apud ib. (h) R. Isaac Arama in Genesis 47.6. spud ib. l. 3. c. 17. (i) Zohar in Num. fol. 99. 2. & Raya Mehimna, in ib. in Gen. fol. 37. 3.((k) R. Saadiah Gaon in Daniel 7.13. Nachman. disp. cure Paulo. p. 36, 55. (l) Zohar in Gen. fol. 60. 3. Jarchi in Psal. cx. 1. Vet. Nizzachon, p. 179, 180. (m) Kimchi & Aben Ezra in Psal. cx. 1. R. Isaac Chizuk Emuna, par. 1. c. 40. p. 321.

Geneva Study Bible

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

People's New Testament

22:44 The LORD. Jehovah.

Said unto my Lord. The Christ. Found in Ps 110:1. This psalm is quoted also in Mr 12:36 Lu 20:42,43 Ac 2:34,35 1Co 15:25 Heb 1:13 5:6,10 7:17,21 10:13.

Wesley's Notes

22:44 The Lord said to my Lord -This his dominion, to which David himself was subject, shows both the heavenly majesty of the king, and the nature of his kingdom. Sit thou on my right hand - That is, remain in the highest authority and power. Psalm 110:1.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

22:41-46 When Christ baffled his enemies, he asked what thoughts they had of the promised Messiah? How he could be the Son of David and yet his Lord? He quotes Ps 110:1. If the Christ was to be a mere man, who would not exist till many ages after David's death, how could his forefather call him Lord? The Pharisees could not answer it. Nor can any solve the difficulty except he allows the Messiah to be the Son of God, and David's Lord equally with the Father. He took upon him human nature, and so became God manifested in the flesh; in this sense he is the Son of man and the Son of David. It behoves us above all things seriously to inquire, What think we of Christ? Is he altogether glorious in our eyes, and precious to our hearts? May Christ be our joy, our confidence, our all. May we daily be made more like to him, and more devoted to his service.

Psalm 110:1 Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

Matthew 22:45 "If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?"

 

[TJ12]

Thank you for your prompt response feedm3. I'm hoping you'll take my post in the spirit it's meant; I'm going to disagree here and there, but always respectfully and with my reasons for doing so. I hope you won't leave off this discussion so that we can follow it through to the end, and both grow in our understanding.

In Jewish custom (and many more around the world) the "first born" was higher in rank, and would be the one to inherit the father's possessions.

I disagree slightly. The firstborn had a literal application to the first male born in a family, and the firstborn rights entitled that one to double the inheritance. Firstborn rights could be transferred to another son, as in the case of Isaac. And again in the case of Jacob's 12 sons, though Reuben was the literal firstborn, his double inheritance was passed to Joseph who was given the firstborn rights, which is why there was no tribe of Joseph, but instead the two tribes of Ephraim and Manassah, both being Joseph's sons.

But yes, "firstborn" carried a connotation of rank with it that sometimes overshadowed the temporal (time) aspect.

The "first born of all creation" means, the highest in rank above all in heaven and in earth. It does not mean that he was made first, and then everyone else.

Here's the problem with your interpretation that you will not be able to escape. You are trying to exclude the firstborn from the group in just this one instance and nowhere else. This is proof that your argument is special pleading.

The term firstborn is an inclusive term by definition. It's literally, in some sense, by time and/or position, the first in a series. Thus, the firstborn of any group must by definition be a member of that group. If you want to drop the time aspect from firstborn completely, then you are in effect arguing for it to mean "foremost". This term carries with it the intrinsic partitive, or inclusive, aspect that firstborn has. By appealing to rank only, you are really saying that Jesus is 'the foremost of creation'. That's all well and good, but he's still by definition a creature.

My argument is one that you can test. Find me one scriptural example of some firstborn that is 'over and above', but not a part of the group in which he/it is firstborn.

It is the same message Paul gives in Philippians:

Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

The term is used to covey preeminence.

Precisely! But that name is still a name, just as Jesus is still a creature. My interpretation remains consistent.

In the same chapter Col we have the phrase he is the "firstborn of the dead".

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Do you think that he was the first to be raised from the dead? What about Lazarus, and all the others we read of?

First, Jesus himself had to be among dead raised up in order to be 'the firstborn from the dead', did he not? So again, the term is inclusive. But the rationale for him being called "the beginning, the firstborn from the dead" is rather simple, and covered in my first post to you. Revelation 1:18 says of Jesus: "the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore." It's evident then that this is the type of resurrection Paul is referring to, not the temporary miracles performed earlier that merely foreshadowed the coming program of resurrection. Paul explains further elsewhere how the real resurrection begins with Christ:

"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ..." (1 Corinthians 15:20-23)

Speaking of David:
89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
Psa 89:21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
Psa 89:22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
Psa 89:23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
Psa 89:24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
Psa 89:25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
Psa 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
Psa 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

...

So then lets point out 27. David is said to be made "my firstborn". If my firstborn means chronological order, then David could not have had any older brothers.

Throw out the chronological aspect here, this again is in line with how "firstborn" is used everywhere else, whether it refers to time alone, position alone, or both. The king here is the firstborn of all the kings only because he is a king to begin with! Even being favored by God, he could not be described as the 'firstborn king' if he was not a king himself. He had to be a part of the group. Again, Jesus could not be the firstborn of creation unless he himself is a creature.

So then we see, their must be a misinterpretation of Col 1:15 on the JW side, because it leads to bizarre conclusions in the remote context.

Really, I don't have any problem, in certain usages of the word, dumping the temporal aspect. That is fine. What cannot be dumped is that the firstborn is in some sense the first of a series that share a common thread. Every single example you provided goes to my point that the firstborn is a member of the group in which he is firstborn. Thus, these are all proofs that Jesus is a creature, being the firstborn of creation either in terms of time, rank, or both.


Here's something else to consider. Let's consider another passage Paul wrote that is similar to one you quoted above:

"[God] seated [Jesus] at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come." (Ephesians 1:20-21; ESV)

So naturally, Jesus himself has no rule or authority or power or dominion, and certainly no name, given that he's seated far above all of these, correct? If you disagree, please explain just how this should be interpreted.


Thank you again for your patience.

 

[TJ12]

Hello GreenNnice,

What do you make of these verses?

I don't want to ignore your post, but I simply won't have time to address all of that in detail. Please choose just one verse, your very best one, that you'd like my view of and I'd be happy to give it to you and we can go from there.

Thanks.

 

[GreenNnice]

All and All.

Blessings.

Two, one.

Very simple, ignore the version repletion, but, simple to do, answer all, if you feel led. The Lord leads

God bless, TJ note: biblical commentary from Matthews, Wesley, Barnes , etc. is for youbto read, to understand the power of 'God.'

 

[TJ12]

Hello again feedm3,

More on JW proof texts:

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1. If "only true God" means ONLY the Father.

2. And if Jesus is "a god"

3. Then this passage is calling Jesus a false god.

Not if you accept that the term 'god' can have more than one definition, again which is found in lexicons such as Mounce's Dictionary, where "god" can be used in a lesser sense. Your argument above is somewhat like saying, the USA has only one president, therefore all presidents of companies, etc, are false presidents. It's a false choice.

Did God make Moses a false god? Are the angels false gods? These are all scriptural examples I brought out in my first post.

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1. If "one God" excludes Jesus from being God, the "one Lord" excludes God from being Lord.

Then what about the 100's of passages calling the Father Lord?

Again, this is proof that you're being too rigid with the words, they are not always used in the most absolute sense! It's just like seeing no difference between the President and merely a president. Titles have different usages and levels!

Paul says there is to us one God, the Father, and there is to us one Lord, the Son. (1 Corinthians 8:6) This means that Paul, like Jesus, recognizes the Father, Jehovah, as the Almighty God and recognizes the one that hemade our Lord, or master, Jesus Christ. (See Acts 2:36)

If "only true God" in John 17:3 can ONLY mean the Father because of the word "ONLY" then this would mean:

1. Christ cannot be called savior: Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

"beside me there is no" would exclude Jesus from being savior sense the Father said their is none beside him. see also Isa 43:21, Hos 13:4, and Jude 25.

Well, again, this is a point I made in my first post. The Father is "the only true God" in the sense that he is "the Most High God", "the Almighty". Representatives of his are called 'gods' in scripture in a relative sense because they derive their power from him. Same goes for salvation. Jehovah is indeed the only true source of salvation. In the past he provided it through Ehud and Othniel, among others, making them saviors in a relative sense. And now he provides it through his Son. Still, Jehovah is the source.

Do you recognize that others in scripture, besides Jehovah and Jesus, are legitimately called 'gods' and 'saviors' by God himself? This seems to be the point you are glossing over because you are just trying to equate the Father and Son, yet missing the absolute/relative distinction elsewhere.

 

[GreenNnice]

If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and, have seen Him.' John 14:7

Maybe the best way for the Truth to be shown is to do brief sentences of what you believe. For example...

#1 We believe Jesus is a prophet (normal man, not Deity) , and, is not God's son.

Thanks , blessings.

Note: I pray everyone speaks in Love no matter how heated this debate will rage. Let Love rule !!!!

 

[TJ12]

Hi GreenNnice,

Thanks for your understanding.

Very simple, ignore the version repletion, but, simple to do, answer all, if you feel led. The Lord leads

I'll take your quote of John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." First, since you're into commentaries, I'm not sure what denomination you are, but John Calvin wrote of it:

"The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is...of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."

I agree wholeheartedly with that. It's easy enough to prove by turning elsewhere in the book of John. Jesus prays to his Father in John 17:22 in regards to his disciples, "that they may be one even as we are one." He didn't mean for them to be one 'ousia' or being, which is what you're evidently understanding at John 10:30, but rather to have unity of belief and purpose.

 

[OFM]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[TJ12]

If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and, have seen Him.' John 14:7

This is exactly why I'm trying to spell out the Jesus is God's perfect representative. Did you happen to read my posts above to Jimmy? We're going over a lot of the same territory. Take a look at the corresponding passages about Jesus' encounter with the centurion as reported by Matthew and Luke. Jesus spoke to the centurion's representatives and it was as if he had seen and spoken to the centurion himself.

Maybe the best way for the Truth to be shown is to do brief sentences of what you believe. For example...

#1 We believe Jesus is a prophet (normal man, not Deity) , and, is not God's son.

This is incorrect. I certainly believe Jesus was/is divine, but again most today think this is unique to God alone. Peter himself wrote to anointed Christians about their hope to "become partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) And of course I view Jesus as the Son of God. I do not, however, view him as 'God the Son'. The terms are not synonyms, and the latter never appears in scripture.

Don't confuse me with Socinians, i.e. those who don't believe Jesus pre-existed his time on earth. I believe he was the very first creature, through whom God created everything, and that he came to the earth as a man, as Adam's true equal (a perfect human being), earned the right to everlasting human life, and then sacrificed it in our behalf, giving back to the human family what Adam had lost and none of his imperfect offspring could recover alone.

 

[feedm3]

Thank you for your prompt response feedm3. I'm hoping you'll take my post in the spirit it's meant; I'm going to disagree here and there, but always respectfully and with my reasons for doing so. I hope you won't leave off this discussion so that we can follow it through to the end, and both grow in our understanding.

I disagree slightly. The firstborn had a literal application to the first male born in a family, and the firstborn rights entitled that one to double the inheritance. Firstborn rights could be transferred to another son, as in the case of Isaac. And again in the case of Jacob's 12 sons, though Reuben was the literal firstborn, his double inheritance was passed to Joseph who was given the firstborn rights, which is why there was no tribe of Joseph, but instead the two tribes of Ephraim and Manassah, both being Joseph's sons.

But yes, "firstborn" carried a connotation of rank with it that sometimes overshadowed the temporal (time) aspect.

Here's the problem with your interpretation that you will not be able to escape. You are trying to exclude the firstborn from the group in just this one instance and nowhere else. This is proof that your argument is special pleading.

The term firstborn is an inclusive term by definition. It's literally, in some sense, by time and/or position, the first in a series. Thus, the firstborn of any group must by definition be a member of that group. If you want to drop the time aspect from firstborn completely, then you are in effect arguing for it to mean "foremost". This term carries with it the intrinsic partitive, or inclusive, aspect that firstborn has. By appealing to rank only, you are really saying that Jesus is 'the foremost of creation'. That's all well and good, but he's still by definition a creature.

My argument is one that you can test. Find me one scriptural example of some firstborn that is 'over and above', but not a part of the group in which he/it is firstborn.

Precisely! But that name is still a name, just as Jesus is still a creature. My interpretation remains consistent.

Of course he is spoken of in a group of creatures, he came here in human form. Thus he is compared with all other forms

We see Jesus, not his eternal form, but the form he chose to come in, which is the form we are in.


Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

What about before he was a little lower than the angels? Could he taste death?

Before he was deity, he is God, he was not able to die, and be among the dead.

So your argument here is missing the point, and saying Jesus conditions in human form were always his conditions.

So because he was human, he is the firstborn of all creation. Before his incarnation is was outside of creation and death.

He is "restored to the Glory he had before the world began" - Jn 17: which shows he gave up some things to come here in human form and die.

First, Jesus himself had to be among dead raised up in order to be 'the firstborn from the dead', did he not? So again, the term is inclusive.

It says he is the firstborn from dead.

He could not die before he came in human form.

So his incarnation made him two things:

1. a created human - Mary
2. able to die - the cross

So do these two things exclude him from being eternal? Do they exclude his deity? Do they show what he was before he came?

NO, your saying because he came in human form, and became part of the creation, and part of the dead, then he must have always been part of creation, and able to die.

This is not consistent with passages saying he is eternal, he is alive forevermore, how can he be alive for evermore if he is able to die?

If he is not able to die, sense he is not in human form, then why would he not be restored to a being outside of creation as well?

But the rationale for him being called "the beginning, the firstborn from the dead" is rather simple, and covered in my first post to you. Revelation 1:18 says of Jesus: "the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore." It's evident then that this is the type of resurrection Paul is referring to, not the temporary miracles performed earlier that merely foreshadowed the coming program of resurrection. Paul explains further elsewhere how the real resurrection begins with Christ:

Same question above: If before he came in human form means he was a part of creation and able to die, then how sense he has been restored to what he was before live forever?

"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ..." (1 Corinthians 15:20-23)

And again, "firstborn of the dead" does not mean first to be raised. You agree on this, yet you seem to thing the "group argument gets away from the words showing how firstborn is to be interpreted.

Since the group argument is flawed because it assumes his human form (creation) and his death, were something is defines him, even before he came.

So then, were back to the words, and example of how the words are to be interpreted.

 

[loveme1]

The JW's are deceived.

If you are willing to take man's word over the word of Yahvah God you will be a sitting duck for the deceivers.

They follow an "interpretation" of the Bible like many religions.

Selective reading is very common and if it does not fit simply re-write it...... not acceptable behaviour one must seek the Truth where it is given.

For if you seek it is found.

When one is not seeking Salvation but trying to set up the government for Yahvah God they seek not forgiveness but a "promotion" etc....



I actually believe they play a part in the "NWO" with this, for if they take man's word over that of Yahvah God and Yahshua the Messiah... then they will be willing participants in the one world government etc...


Let me be grateful for my forgiveness and be the lowest of all... for it is a Blessing to be forgiven by the Most High and the way in which we are forgiven is the absolute Act of Grace, Love and Kindness toward me that i don't think i could ever show enough gratitude for... humble me for it is overwhelming....

Now come out of that Religion and seek Yahshua the Messiah who will lead you home to Yahvah God.
You do not need the kingdom hall's interpretation.

You need a willing heart my friends...

Let the Holy Spirit be your guide.

If this simple minded sinner can be taught then so can you all.

I once read the part where the virgins did not have any oil (when i was not guided)... and wondered what type of lamp and oil one must have simple as they come.

The patience the Holy Spirit had with me..... sometimes it would come while i was doing dinner.

For instance the scraps from the Masters table... oh how it was softly explained after much considering.

Read the Bible Old and New front to back....

Peace and Blessings in the name of Yahvah God and Yahshua the Messiah.