6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[TJ12]

Hello feedm3,

That is what I do when others ignore and deflect by attempting to make it appear I am ignoring and deflecting so it's no so obvious they are doing what they are accusing.

Here is your claim:
Were you aware that every time John uses porskyneos other than referring to Christ, it always means worship in it's normal sense - Look it up, see if you can find John using this word in any other sense.

Here, again, is my response:
"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down [proskyneo] before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9; ESV)

Any answer to this?

 

[hopesprings]

In one of my previous posts, I said "As you pointed out: this exact phrase (el gibbor = mighty God) is only used one other place, Isa. 10:21. " I would like to retract that statement since el gibbor is found in another place in scripture. Sorry...

 

[TJ12]

Hello hopesprings,

Can you please explain to me what sort of “problems” one could run into by matching titles?

I've been demonstrating this throughout this very thread. A simple example is the title "savior", which unlike "Mighty God" would appear to be explicitly defined as an exclusive title, belong only to God:

"I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:10)

But even with this, one has to take into account the following:

"And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." (Judges 3:9)

"But when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. And the children of Israel sent tribute by him unto Eglon the king of Moab." (Judges 3:15)

Now what if I put to you the conclusion, 'this is undeniable proof that Othniel and Ehud are really God himself.' How would you respond?

You say that the title, Mighty God, is used once of God and once of the Messiah; both by Isaiah (9:6 and 10:21), right? What about Jeremiah 32:18?

That has the words in close association, but it's not the exact title in Hebrew (hag gibbor).

The context of the bible does suggest that this title is exclusive to God – please show me somewhere that it is not used of God (or Jesus)?

This is why I'm talking about your presuppositions. You're argument is essentially this, 'person A is called "strong man", person B is called "strong man", I don't find anyone else described as "strong man", therefore person A is person B.' Do you agree with that argument specifically? If not, why not?

Is there any other title that is used of God, and applied to another person, besides Jesus? Perhaps you have found one that I have overlooked, and if you have, can you please share it with me.

I did this, with the Hebrew 'el elohim' used of God at Psalm 50:1, and the judges at Psalm 82:1. Another example could be the following:

"And the angel of the Lord appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush...And he said, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'" (Exodus 3:2,6)

Peter said, "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him." (Acts 3:13)

I don’t expect you to agree with any of the conclusions that I have made…that’s for you to figure out. And you are right: a strong man isn’t necessarily the strongest man. But, the strong man is the strongest man if there is only ONE strong man.

And this is exactly why I don't agree with you on "Mighty God." There's much more reason to believe that only God can rightfully be called "savior" in scripture, yet even that's not the case, unless you're prepared to argue similarly that Othniel and Ehud are Jehovah God as well.

Paul gives us the example of Christ’s humility, not the example of his choice between right and wrong.

But if that's the case, that Paul makes the explicit point to Christians to reject selfish ambition and instead choose humility, and then presents the pre-existent Jesus as a model, but limits his choice to simply choosing humility (rather than rejecting selfish ambition and choosing humility)...what exactly is the point of the latter half of verse 6?

You're telling me that it's established in the first part of verse 6 that Jesus is God because he has God's form; so why doesn't Paul continue right on to verse 7? What's the point of talking about 'grasping' with reference to 'equality with God'?

So…I need to ask…are you saying that Jesus is/was an angel? And…you still have not answered why Jesus can be called “Mighty God” if he is not God.

I have answered that second question; I said that Jesus could rightly be called a "Mighty God" once he was 'given all authority in heaven and earth.' (Matthew 28:18) This would still not make him the "Almighty" as Paul makes clear:

"For 'God has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when it says, 'all things are put in subjection,' it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him." (1 Corinthians 15:27)

As for the first part, I still submit that God's form refers to having a spiritual nature, but that's besides the point for now.


Thank you, hopesprings.

 

[feedm3]

Hello feedm3,


Here is your claim:
Were you aware that every time John uses porskyneos other than referring to Christ, it always means worship in it's normal sense - Look it up, see if you can find John using this word in any other sense.

Here, again, is my response:
"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down [proskyneo] before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9; ESV)

Any answer to this?

Sure. Wow you found 1 time John uses the word to not refer to Christ or God, but people. Great job, now again, what does this prove to you?

Second, do you not see "before your feet"?

1. If God made them "worship" those being written, and? I supposed to say, God would never do that? He can do whatever he wants.

2. It does not say they will be worshiped, but the others will worship "before their feet", or "bowdown". The question is to who are they bowing down to? Them or God?

3. I posted this to show your logic in saying "every-time John uses this word" etc, just to show that doesn't mean anything, it changes nothing. The if John used a word here to mean this, and not over there, so? And as I said, he was quoting Jesus so that argument was not even relevant in showing how "John" used the word, when he is quoting what someone else said.

4. What in the context of John 9:38 would change the word to "obeisance", and not in the other 22+passages of John's writings? any answer to this, that I have been asking?

 

[feedm3]

Oh yea, and sense were asking each other questions, I said I would come back to your claim about being the same first century church, or getting your authority for what you speak and practice from the example of the church.

So, you never answered, why is it the JW's have a headquarters over the congregations, when the NT shows the NT church that Jesus built only had Jesus as head? There were no earthly headquarters.

It is evident in studying the NT church, each congregation was/is autonomous, and if they were blessed enough to have elders, then still, the elders were over the congregation, but surpassing the Bible in authority - Col 3:17

So I really want to know how if you feel your the same church, do you have a design different from the NT church that Jesus built and designed? - Matt 16:18

As I said, sense I am questioning certain things practiced by the JW's, feel free to ask me anything about what I practice as well. church of Christ, many hate it, many dont, there is a slew of info on the web, some false, some true, but ask anything you want.

Not that I just want to argue, but like I said, if we cant agree on salvation issues such as the church, what to do to be saved, etc, what does anything else matter?

 

[TJ12]

Hello feedm3,

Sure. Wow you found 1 time John uses the word to not refer to Christ or God, but people.Great job, now again, what does this prove to you?

I keep telling you this, feedm3; this is not about you versus me. If you cannot get past all this personal stuff, perhaps it's best we just stop.

Second, do you not see "before your feet"?

I sure do. That means the 'proskyneo' is in reference to the Christians being addressed, as the ESV has it.

3. I posted this to show your logic in saying "every-time John uses this word" etc, just to show that doesn't mean anything, it changes nothing.

And your claim was demonstrably incorrect. But regardless, my four points are intended to show the best translation/interpretation of Revelation 3:14, scripturally. Isn't that what you're interested in?

4. What in the context of John 9:38 would change the word to "obeisance", and not in the other 22+passages of John's writings? any answer to this, that I have been asking?

This was explained to you previously. How 'proskyneo' is rendered, in any translation, depends entirely upon interpretation, which is why I don't use it to prove my theology. In the NWT, whenever 'proskyneo' is given to God, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to a rival of God in an improper way, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to an appointed representative of God in an improper sense, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to an appointed representative of God in a proper sense, it's rendered in its relative sense. You'll find this true in every usage of the word in the NWT.

In the immediate context of John 9:38, Jesus says that he is a representative of God when he says in front of the blind man, "We must work the works of him who sent me." (John 9:4) Later, when asked about Jesus' identity, the healed blind man said of him, "He is a prophet," not 'He is God.' (John 9:17) It's in this context, where the healed blind man recognizes Jesus as one sent forth from God, that he gives him 'proskyneo' or 'obeisance.'

Oh yea, and sense were asking each other questions, I said I would come back to your claim about being the same first century church, or getting your authority for what you speak and practice from the example of the church.

So, you never answered, why is it the JW's have a headquarters over the congregations, when the NT shows the NT church that Jesus built only had Jesus as head? There were no earthly headquarters.

I did answer it, feedm3. You'll find the answer in this post: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...uestions-jehovahs-witnesses-6.html#post827843

 

[TJ12]

This was explained to you previously. How 'proskyneo' is rendered, in any translation, depends entirely upon interpretation, which is why I don't use it to prove my theology. In the NWT, whenever 'proskyneo' is given to God, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to a rival of God in an improper way, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to an appointed representative of God in an improper sense, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to an appointed representative of God in a proper sense, it's rendered in its relative sense. You'll find this true in every usage of the word in the NWT.

I should add to this that whenever 'proskyneo' is given to someone greater (not necessarily a representative of God) in a proper sense, it's rendered in its relative sense.

 

[feedm3]

Hello feedm3,


I keep telling you this, feedm3; this is not about you versus me. If you cannot get past all this personal stuff, perhaps it's best we just stop.


I sure do. That means the 'proskyneo' is in reference to the Christians being addressed, as the ESV has it.


And your claim was demonstrably incorrect. But regardless, my four points are intended to show the best translation/interpretation of Revelation 3:14, scripturally. Isn't that what you're interested in?


This was explained to you previously. How 'proskyneo' is rendered, in any translation, depends entirely upon interpretation, which is why I don't use it to prove my theology. In the NWT, whenever 'proskyneo' is given to God, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to a rival of God in an improper way, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to an appointed representative of God in an improper sense, it's rendered in its absolute sense; whenever it's given to an appointed representative of God in a proper sense, it's rendered in its relative sense. You'll find this true in every usage of the word in the NWT.

In the immediate context of John 9:38, Jesus says that he is a representative of God when he says in front of the blind man, "We must work the works of him who sent me." (John 9:4) Later, when asked about Jesus' identity, the healed blind man said of him, "He is a prophet," not 'He is God.' (John 9:17) It's in this context, where the healed blind man recognizes Jesus as one sent forth from God, that he gives him 'proskyneo' or 'obeisance.'

I did answer it, feedm3. You'll find the answer in this post: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...uestions-jehovahs-witnesses-6.html#post827843

Okay then I will not try to push a conversation as some do. Nothing personal at all, dont know why you would choose to end it on such comment, I hold no hard feelings toward you, only dont agree with what you teach. Perhaps maybe in another discussion I will tell you why I posted these questions. Nevertheless, thank you for all your responses.

"As [Paul and Timothy] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them [the local Christians] for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem." (Acts 16:4)

Jerusalem was headquarters of the worldwide church.

You did answer, sorry.

This is wrong as well though. In Acts 16 there was a dispute about a certain teaching some were advocating, and because they would not take Paul's word (I believe Paul knew the answers as some MSS show) they asked the rest of the Apostles who were in Jerusalem. This shows some churches, had high regard to what the Apostles said, yet this still is not a headquarters in the way J.W's have them today. In fact this is nowhere even close.

There is no example of an earthly headquarters, and the Apostles are no more, their power nor office was passed down. There is not a passage that shows this either.

It is an addition that is added today, but was not part of the church Christ built.

But I am not trying to keep this going if you wanted to end it. So you dont have to respond if you dont feel like it. (of course you already knew that

)

 

[hopesprings]

Hello hopesprings,


I've been demonstrating this throughout this very thread. A simple example is the title "savior", which unlike "Mighty God" would appear to be explicitly defined as an exclusive title, belong only to God:

"I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:10)

But even with this, one has to take into account the following:

"And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." (Judges 3:9)

"But when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. And the children of Israel sent tribute by him unto Eglon the king of Moab." (Judges 3:15)

Now what if I put to you the conclusion, 'this is undeniable proof that Othniel and Ehud are really God himself.' How would you respond?


That has the words in close association, but it's not the exact title in Hebrew (hag gibbor).


This is why I'm talking about your presuppositions. You're argument is essentially this, 'person A is called "strong man", person B is called "strong man", I don't find anyone else described as "strong man", therefore person A is person B.' Do you agree with that argument specifically? If not, why not?


I did this, with the Hebrew 'el elohim' used of God at Psalm 50:1, and the judges at Psalm 82:1. Another example could be the following:

"And the angel of the Lord appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush...And he said, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'" (Exodus 3:2,6)

Peter said, "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him." (Acts 3:13)


And this is exactly why I don't agree with you on "Mighty God." There's much more reason to believe that only God can rightfully be called "savior" in scripture, yet even that's not the case, unless you're prepared to argue similarly that Othniel and Ehud are Jehovah God as well.


But if that's the case, that Paul makes the explicit point to Christians to reject selfish ambition and instead choose humility, and then presents the pre-existent Jesus as a model, but limits his choice to simply choosing humility (rather than rejecting selfish ambition and choosing humility)...what exactly is the point of the latter half of verse 6?

You're telling me that it's established in the first part of verse 6 that Jesus is God because he has God's form; so why doesn't Paul continue right on to verse 7? What's the point of talking about 'grasping' with reference to 'equality with God'?


I have answered that second question; I said that Jesus could rightly be called a "Mighty God" once he was 'given all authority in heaven and earth.' (Matthew 28:18) This would still not make him the "Almighty" as Paul makes clear:

"For 'God has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when it says, 'all things are put in subjection,' it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him." (1 Corinthians 15:27)

As for the first part, I still submit that God's form refers to having a spiritual nature, but that's besides the point for now.


Thank you, hopesprings.

I feel like we are going in circles again. The only thing that you have been demonstrating in this thread, is that you don't believe Jesus is God, regardless of what anyone says.

Jeremiah 32:18 does not use "closely associated" words for mighty God, it uses the exact same words as Isa. 9:6 and 10:21; “el gibbor” – Mighty God. You brought up the usage of the word ‘savior’ to show how God’s titles can be applied to others; yet, the title ‘savior’ can be applied to more then one person because more then one person can be a savior. That would depends on the context. Can more then one person be Mighty God, if there is only ONE God? Being given “all authority in heaven and earth” does not mean, or imply, that you get to be called something that you are not. This is especially true of God because he will not share his glory with another; the glory he gets for being the One and Only God.

You are ignoring my point about Ps. 82:1. These judges are not being called “mighty God” ; they are not being given as a title or a name; these words are being used to describe them. That’s why I said the context is entirely different – it isn’t “just title matching”. The usage of these words (in Ps. 82:1), are entirely different then the instances where God is called ‘el elohim’ – so you still have not shown me anywhere in scripture where a title applied to God is given to someone else. I do not agree with your argument about the strong man. If history tells us that there is only ONE strong man, yet two people are spoken of as being the strong man, then those two people have to be the same strong man! Are you proposing that there is more then ONE God?

In Phil 2:7, Paul is giving us an example of humility. Now…I said that the only way you can get Jesus grabbing at something that isn’t his, is if you only take the second half of verse 6 into consideration. That is exactly what you are doing. The word “grasped” doesn’t have to mean ‘grabbing onto to something that doesn’t belong to you’; the word sometimes means ‘to hold onto something’. The definition of that word is made clear by the context in which it is used. That is my point. Jesus, though being God (because he was pre-existent in God’s form), did not hold onto something that already belonged to him…he gave it up for the purpose of redemption. Quite honestly, you will never find another example of someone being more humble then God taking on the form of a servant for the reason that He did.

And you can defend your stance on telling me that I come to these conclusions because I am pre-supposing something…but that is only your assumption - and one that I politely implied that you should not be making. Have you, independently and personally, looked into the bible to find the answers to these questions for yourself? I do not understand your second example of how God’s title can be applied to anyone else…please explain further.

hopesprings

 

[TJ12]

Hello feedm3,

Thanks for the response.

Okay then I will not try to push a conversation as some do. Nothing personal at all, dont know why you would choose to end it on such comment, I hold no hard feelings toward you, only dont agree with what you teach.

I'm not ending the discussion, feedm3, I'm just trying to get you to keep it from becoming personal. This isn't about you versus me and who's 'winning'. If I show you an instance that clearly contradicts the thesis you present, it shouldn't be something that upsets you and makes you respond with sarcastic comments like, "Sure. Wow you found 1 time John uses the word to not refer to Christ or God, but people. Great job, now again, what does this prove to you?"

Allow the Bible to define itself and be content with it.

This is wrong as well though. In Acts 16 there was a dispute about a certain teaching some were advocating, and because they would not take Paul's word (I believe Paul knew the answers as some MSS show) they asked the rest of the Apostles who were in Jerusalem. This shows some churches, had high regard to what the Apostles said, yet this still is not a headquarters in the way J.W's have them today. In fact this is nowhere even close.

I disagree entirely. The congregation in Antioch sent representatives to the apostles and Jerusalem to render a decision on a controversy. Acts 16:4, as the NIV has it, says Paul and Timothy "delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey." This is centralized authority on doctrinal matters, and we've modeled ourselves in the same manner.

In fact, this has proven necessary in order to uphold Paul's teaching "that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought." (1 Cor. 1:10) Having a governing body like that in Jerusalem has kept Jehovah's Witnesses united.

 

[feedm3]

Hello feedm3,

Thanks for the response.

I'm not ending the discussion, feedm3, I'm just trying to get you to keep it from becoming personal. This isn't about you versus me and who's 'winning'. If I show you an instance that clearly contradicts the thesis you present, it shouldn't be something that upsets you and makes you respond with sarcastic comments like, "Sure. Wow you found 1 time John uses the word to not refer to Christ or God, but people. Great job, now again, what does this prove to you?"

Allow the Bible to define itself and be content with it.

Well then Good. As I said before sorry if I have offended you. I do speak with sarcasm, I think we do at times, but not because you have shown a contradiction, (which you havent), but because that's how I speak. Maybe I should not do that with you, seeing you feel it means something else.

Sense we are saying what we dont like, I dont mind you saying things like you did about the way I say something, it's when you attempt to show the reason I did this, and then make into something else.

Actually that makes it hard for me to take what you just said seriously, seeing you just showed why you said it, to pretend like you proved something that made me mad. See, I catch things like that, and it shows how sincere you are in what your saying.

Kind of like those who count "well I am sorry if you heard me wrong" as an apology.

That is why I said it was about "show" for you. If not, then leave out the rest, and just say you dont appreciate sarcasm, I will try to respect that.

I disagree entirely. The congregation in Antioch sent representatives to the apostles and Jerusalem to render a decision on a controversy. Acts 16:4, as the NIV has it, says Paul and Timothy "delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey." This is centralized authority on doctrinal matters, and we've modeled ourselves in the same manner.

No you haven't, and this incident does not even prove an earthly headquarters, but a question addressed to the Apostles concerning a doctrine.

I am sure there are no Apostles in the JW headquarters.

In fact, this has proven necessary in order to uphold Paul's teaching "that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought." (1 Cor. 1:10) Having a governing body like that in Jerusalem has kept Jehovah's Witnesses united.

No it has kept them all in error. That is why God did not design the church to work this way. He put elders as an office for the church, yet the Jesus is the authority, therefore His word.

If one falls into error, it does not affect all the congregations, because they are autonomous. The way yours is designed, false doctrine and error get's passed along to all the congregations, because they have went outside of the design of the church


I Cor 1:10 is exactly right, and this done by only speaking and practicing things by the authority of Christ (Col 3:17), which is by the word of God, written today, being written and spoken then.

Acts 15 and 16 show a decision made by the Apostles(and elders) in Jerusalem, nothing more. Only the Apostles had the authority to tell them the answer to the quesiton, and as I have said I believe Paul knew the answer as well, yet the church wanted further proof.

Apostles are gone, they did not hand down their authority do men, but as the Bible came together we have the unity of the faith, and that is our authority, not a headquarters, nor a creed book, or the watchtower, there are no authority for these things.

Is it also true that JW must answer a bunch of questions showing if they are "spiritual" enough to be baptized?

Because again, in the NT, those who were baptized, were baptized immediately upon hearing the gospel, never were told to wait, or answer questions provided by Elders.

i ask because if JW's are molded by the first century church, and derives it's authority from the command, examples, and inference from what we read, then where is the authority for this?

These are sincere questions that I have. I knew where the Jesus and God discussions lead to, but these I have no idea.

 

[TJ12]

Hello hopesprings,

Thank you once again for your response.

The only thing that you have been demonstrating in this thread, is that you don't believe Jesus is God, regardless of what anyone says.

Well, in a sense that's true. It's not what "anyone says" that will convince me, but what's said that is supported by reason and the scriptures.

I really don't believe that you can honestly read through the many points I've made throughout this thread and claim that there's nothing to it whatsoever.

Jeremiah 32:18 does not use "closely associated" words for mighty God, it uses the exact same words as Isa. 9:6 and 10:21; “el gibbor” – Mighty God.

It doesn't. It literally says, 'the god, the great, the mighty, Jehovah of hosts.' Like I said, closely associated.

You brought up the usage of the word ‘savior’ to show how God’s titles can be applied to others; yet, the title ‘savior’ can be applied to more then one person because more then one person can be a savior.

hopesprings, the title 'god' can be applied to more than one person! This has been already been proved in this very thread. From Mounce's Dictionary: "In other instances, elohim seems to refer to superhuman beings in general--angels, divine ones."

Can more then one person be Mighty God, if there is only ONE God?

Yes! You're building your argument upon a faulty premise; there is only one God. There is only one ALMIGHTY God. His divinely-appointed agents are 'gods' in a relative sense. One in particular is given such authority that he's called "Mighty" in comparison. This does not necessitate that he be the Almighty.

Being given “all authority in heaven and earth” does not mean, or imply, that you get to be called something that you are not. This is especially true of God because he will not share his glory with another; the glory he gets for being the One and Only God.

You quoted Isaiah 42:8, which is the same exact context from which I pulled the verse that says that only Jehovah is "savior", no one else. (Isaiah 43:11) The context shows that Jehovah God is talking about himself versus the gods of the nations. He will not give them the glory that rightly belongs to him. They cannot be called 'saviors'. But he does allow his representatives a measure of glory and even saves through them, which is why they can properly be called 'gods' and/or 'saviors'.

That Jesus' is being given extraordinary authority does not take away from God's glory in anyway; this is spelled out at the end of the passage we've been considering in Philippians:

"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)

You are ignoring my point about Ps. 82:1. These judges are not being called “mighty God” ; they are not being given as a title or a name; these words are being used to describe them.

I'm not ignoring your points. It's just that what you're arguing is entirely subjective. Even if we go ahead and write this off as just 'words being used to describe them' (which is, by the way, the definition of a name in Hebrew), what do you make of words that are certainly names, like 'Jehu', which means "Jehovah is He"?

so you still have not shown me anywhere in scripture where a title applied to God is given to someone else.

I just showed you that, according to Isaiah, only Jehovah can properly be called 'savior' ("there is no one else"), yet Othniel and Ehud are clearly given this same exact title elsewhere. Can you honestly tell me that, if those two weren't called 'saviors' you wouldn't make the same exact argument for the 'exclusive' title "Savior" being applied to God and Jesus that you're trying to make for "Mighty God"? What about where the angel in the burning bush attributes God's names to himself?

I do not agree with your argument about the strong man. If history tells us that there is only ONE strong man, yet two people are spoken of as being the strong man, then those two people have to be the same strong man! Are you proposing that there is more then ONE God?

Yes! As does Mounce's dictionary and numerous Bible commentators, etc. I have been arguing this from my very first post! Jesus himself not only recognizes the existence of these 'gods' (i.e. divinely-appointed representatives of Jehovah), but he also compares himself to them.

In Phil 2:7, Paul is giving us an example of humility. Now…I said that the only way you can get Jesus grabbing at something that isn’t his, is if you only take the second half of verse 6 into consideration. That is exactly what you are doing. The word “grasped” doesn’t have to mean ‘grabbing onto to something that doesn’t belong to you’; the word sometimes means ‘to hold onto something’.

Please show me one example of this from scripture. The underlying Greek word for 'grasped' is 'harpagmos'. The root verb is 'harpazo' and can be found in 13 verses of the New Testament. What do these all have in common, 'holding on to something that is already possessed' or 'seizing something that is not yet in one's possession'?

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it." (Matthew 11:13)

"When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path." (Matthew 13:19)

"Then Jesus, knowing that they meant to come and seize Him that they might make Him king, withdrew again to the hillside by Himself alone." (John 6:15)

"But the hired servant (he who merely serves for wages) who is neither the shepherd nor the owner of the sheep, when he sees the wolf coming, deserts the flock and runs away. And the wolf chases and snatches them and scatters [the flock]." (John 10:12)

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:28-29)

"When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:39)

"The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks." (Acts 23:10)

"...save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." (Jude 23)

"She gave birth to a son, a male child, who 'will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.' And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne." (Revelation 12:5)

At Philippians 2:6, the sense is no different; this is in harmony with the definition of the word and Paul's argument. He says to reject selfish ambition. The pre-existent Jesus, who he provides as a model, rejects the selfish ambition of seizing equality with God, something he does not yet possess, just like in all the examples above.

That is my point. Jesus, though being God (because he was pre-existent in God’s form), did not hold onto something that already belonged to him…he gave it up for the purpose of redemption.

But you are completely dropping one half of Paul's argument, wherein he says to reject selfish ambition, because in your interpretation there was no selfish ambition for Jesus to reject, and you've made the two clauses in verse 6 redundant; why did Paul need to say that Jesus was God (as you interpret it) twice? Why didn't he just say that Jesus existed in the form of God (which to you is proof enough that Jesus is God) and then move right on to verse 7, saying that he humbled himself?

And you can defend your stance on telling me that I come to these conclusions because I am pre-supposing something…but that is only your assumption - and one that I politely implied that you should not be making.

But why else would you insist on a definition of that one word that is supported nowhere else in scripture?

Have you, independently and personally, looked into the bible to find the answers to these questions for yourself?

Yes, and up until now I've been patiently answering all of the many proof texts thrown in my direction and awaiting to discuss my own proof texts. Are you willing?


Thank you for your patience.

 

[ra88itt]

Hi Hopesprings

You are ignoring my point about Ps. 82:1. These judges are not being called “mighty God” ; they are not being given as a title or a name; these words are being used to describe them. That’s why I said the context is entirely different – it isn’t “just title matching”. The usage of these words (in Ps. 82:1), are entirely different then the instances where God is called ‘el elohim’ – so you still have not shown me anywhere in scripture where a title applied to God is given to someone else. I do not agree with your argument about the strong man. If history tells us that there is only ONE strong man, yet two people are spoken of as being the strong man, then those two people have to be the same strong man! Are you proposing that there is more then ONE God?

Although TJ12 has given sufficient illustrative reasons why the application of the title “Mighty” should not mean that one who it is applied to makes another with that same “Mighty” title one and the same entity, (the saviours for example) …to be specific, here is an example, be it in Trinitarian thought, where a descriptive title of excellence is given to a man that is also given to the Trinitarian’s God, Jesus… Though the following is based on the concept that Jesus is God, from a Trinitarian point of view, it shows us that “their God” and a man, shared a title:

In God’s word, Nebuchadnezzar was titled the “King of Kings”… Whether figuratively or literally, just like the shared title Alpha and Omega is figurative, yet accepted as applicable to Jesus, the title King of Kings is applied to Jesus and also to Nebuchadnezzar…Here:

“You, O king, the king of kings, you to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the might, and the strength and the dignity,” (Melech ha-M'lachim)
Daniel 2:37

In Judaism (and in Islam) this phrase: “Melech ha-M'lachim” was only meant to be applied to God, However, Babylonian and Persian kings are referred as King of Kings, and also, as seen, it is applied to the King in the Bible. This speaks volumes. We have a title applied to “God” yet it is given to humans.

Jesus was similarly given the title “King of Kings”.

“His title “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Basileus Basileon) Revelation 19:16

In the unlikely event that Jesus is God, (lets pretend) then God (“Jesus”) is titled ‘King of Kings’, and Nebuchadnezzar a mere human, is titled ‘King of Kings’ we have a case of one being given the same title that is given to “God“, or to be pedantic an identical title applied to your "person of God".

Of course, a title applied to one entity does not mean that another given the same title is the same entity as the one that initially was given that title. The same with the descriptive title Mighty. If one is titled Mighty God, such as Jesus is in Isaiah, and Jehovah God is called Mighty God too, we cannot assume that those ones to be one and the same entity, just as the titled King of Kings, Nebuchadnezzar is not the same entity as the King of Kings, Jesus.

 

[TJ12]

Hello feedm3,

I do speak with sarcasm, I think we do at times, but not because you have shown a contradiction, (which you havent), but because that's how I speak. Maybe I should not do that with you, seeing you feel it means something else.

It doesn't offend me; it just seems to support my thought that you view this as a contest between you and me. Several times you've characterized our discussion in terms of 'winning versus losing'. Frankly I don't care to continue a conversation with someone trying to 'win' rather than getting at the truth of scripture. Which is more important to you?

Actually that makes it hard for me to take what you just said seriously, seeing you just showed why you said it, to pretend like you proved something that made me mad. See, I catch things like that, and it shows how sincere you are in what your saying.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, to be honest. Stop worrying about me trying to 'make you mad' or pretending to make you mad. I honestly don't care about any of that drama, and I'm not purposefully trying to make you mad. I'm going to tell you what I think about the evidence under consideration directly. And I'm going to tell you when I think you're wrong.

No you haven't, and this incident does not even prove an earthly headquarters, but a question addressed to the Apostles concerning a doctrine.

This incident is recorded in the scriptures. It shows a local congregation appealing to another for a decision on doctrine, to be made by a responsible and qualified body of elders, all spiritual men that will prayerfully consider the matter in light of reason and scripture. After that decision was made, it had to be obeyed by all the other local congregations.

This arrangement didn't cause division, but the exact opposite: "they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers." (Acts 16:4-5) We see similar results today.

I am sure there are no Apostles in the JW headquarters.

No apostles, but the same governing body of elders that decides on matters of doctrine prayerfully and with scripture.

Is it also true that JW must answer a bunch of questions showing if they are "spiritual" enough to be baptized?

Because again, in the NT, those who were baptized, were baptized immediately upon hearing the gospel, never were told to wait, or answer questions provided by Elders.

What was the background of those converts? Weren't they people already educated in spiritual matters by way of the Jewish religion. All they needed preached to them was that Jesus was the Messiah they were awaiting, and yes, dedication in harmony with God's truth was quick. They were in a transitioning period between the Jewish religion and the newly formed Christian religion. The baptism of Greeks not well acquainted with the scriptures took time.

 

[feedm3]

Hello feedm3,


It doesn't offend me; it just seems to support my thought that you view this as a contest between you and me. Several times you've characterized our discussion in terms of 'winning versus losing'. Frankly I don't care to continue a conversation with someone trying to 'win' rather than getting at the truth of scripture. Which is more important to you?

Paste where I said things, and hopefully you will notice they were directed at the manner you speaking to me.

Are you saying you dont want to speak with me anymore, or not?

You seem to keep going back and forth, I cant tell, the last post you said you were not ending, now again it sounds like you are.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, to be honest. Stop worrying about me trying to 'make you mad' or pretending to make you mad. I honestly don't care about any of that drama, and I'm not purposefully trying to make you mad. I'm going to tell you what I think about the evidence under consideration directly. And I'm going to tell you when I think you're wrong.

Okay good.

This incident is recorded in the scriptures. It shows a local congregation appealing to another for a decision on doctrine, to be made by a responsible and qualified body of elders, all spiritual men that will prayerfully consider the matter in light of reason and scripture. After that decision was made, it had to be obeyed by all the other local congregations.



This arrangement didn't cause division, but the exact opposite: "they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers." (Acts 16:4-5) We see similar results today.


No apostles, but the same governing body of elders that decides on matters of doctrine prayerfully and with scripture.

There is a major difference difference. Each congregation has it's elders. It's elders were not under the authority of some government body of elders.

In the NT some did not yet have elders, but they still would be autonomous, using the Bible as their authority.

No Elder has authority over another congregation, unless he was also an Apostle like Peter was both, but this cannot be true today.

So again, there is no authority for a governing body over multiple congregations. This is not found in scripture, and Acts 15 is not an example of this.

It was an example of a question they had concerning what they should do. They got their answer, from the Apostles and Elders who in that were guided by the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus' promise made to them.

We are not inspired, there is no governing body that is. We may have elders, but they are not over another congregation, and their are no elders who are over them.

What was the background of those converts? Weren't they people already educated in spiritual matters by way of the Jewish religion. All they needed preached to them was that Jesus was the Messiah they were awaiting, and yes, dedication in harmony with God's truth was quick.

There are definatly plenty example of this, so I agree. But would add, just because they knew the old testament, did not mean others could not be baptized just as quick. Baptism was no dependent upon how much one knows prior to them learning of Christ, it was dependent upon their acceptance of the gospel.

Like Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8. He was a Samaritan probably. Yet he was a sorcerer, (doesnt sound very Spirutal, seeing he was practing things of Satan) He was baptized immediately upon believing Phillip.

He was not asked how much he knew first, nor to wait, but was baptized quickly. He being an infant in Christ even immediatly fell right back into sin, he was told to repent of his wickedness.

He was baptized, by what authority can we deny anyone to be baptized no matter how much "prior" knowlege they have? Again there is not example of this, therefore no authority.

They were in a transitioning period between the Jewish religion and the newly formed Christian religion. The baptism of Greeks not well acquainted with the scriptures took time.

This is different from the above statement about the Jews, seeing for this you have no example or command.

The was no difference in one who was "educated in Spiritual matters" against another who was not. There definitely is not an example you can show of this. IF there is please show it.

There are certainly examples of Gentiles being baptized upon hearing the gospel.

One only needs to hear the gospel in order to be saved - Rom 1:16.

If we are only going by authority for what we practice, then to practice baptism in the manner you have said, there must be a command or an example of this, but there is not, nor is it implied.

So where do does the authority come from?

If the JW writings such as the Watchtower, then that is surpassing the Bible as authority, and of course there is no authority for that either.

Which also brings me to my next question, (last one for now until were through)

Do you feel the Watchtower is inspired (as in God breathed II Tim 3:16), or is it just writing like any other commentary for understanding, but not binding?

 

[hopesprings]

Hello hopesprings,

Thank you once again for your response.


Well, in a sense that's true. It's not what "anyone says" that will convince me, but what's said that is supported by reason and the scriptures.

I really don't believe that you can honestly read through the many points I've made throughout this thread and claim that there's nothing to it whatsoever.


It doesn't. It literally says, 'the god, the great, the mighty, Jehovah of hosts.' Like I said, closely associated.


hopesprings, the title 'god' can be applied to more than one person! This has been already been proved in this very thread. From Mounce's Dictionary: "In other instances, elohim seems to refer to superhuman beings in general--angels, divine ones."


Yes! You're building your argument upon a faulty premise; there is only one God. There is only one ALMIGHTY God. His divinely-appointed agents are 'gods' in a relative sense. One in particular is given such authority that he's called "Mighty" in comparison. This does not necessitate that he be the Almighty.



You quoted Isaiah 42:8, which is the same exact context from which I pulled the verse that says that only Jehovah is "savior", no one else. (Isaiah 43:11) The context shows that Jehovah God is talking about himself versus the gods of the nations. He will not give them the glory that rightly belongs to him. They cannot be called 'saviors'. But he does allow his representatives a measure of glory and even saves through them, which is why they can properly be called 'gods' and/or 'saviors'.

That Jesus' is being given extraordinary authority does not take away from God's glory in anyway; this is spelled out at the end of the passage we've been considering in Philippians:

"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)


I'm not ignoring your points. It's just that what you're arguing is entirely subjective. Even if we go ahead and write this off as just 'words being used to describe them' (which is, by the way, the definition of a name in Hebrew), what do you make of words that are certainly names, like 'Jehu', which means "Jehovah is He"?


I just showed you that, according to Isaiah, only Jehovah can properly be called 'savior' ("there is no one else"), yet Othniel and Ehud are clearly given this same exact title elsewhere. Can you honestly tell me that, if those two weren't called 'saviors' you wouldn't make the same exact argument for the 'exclusive' title "Savior" being applied to God and Jesus that you're trying to make for "Mighty God"? What about where the angel in the burning bush attributes God's names to himself?


Yes! As does Mounce's dictionary and numerous Bible commentators, etc. I have been arguing this from my very first post! Jesus himself not only recognizes the existence of these 'gods' (i.e. divinely-appointed representatives of Jehovah), but he also compares himself to them.


Please show me one example of this from scripture. The underlying Greek word for 'grasped' is 'harpagmos'. The root verb is 'harpazo' and can be found in 13 verses of the New Testament. What do these all have in common, 'holding on to something that is already possessed' or 'seizing something that is not yet in one's possession'?

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it." (Matthew 11:13)

"When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path." (Matthew 13:19)

"Then Jesus, knowing that they meant to come and seize Him that they might make Him king, withdrew again to the hillside by Himself alone." (John 6:15)

"But the hired servant (he who merely serves for wages) who is neither the shepherd nor the owner of the sheep, when he sees the wolf coming, deserts the flock and runs away. And the wolf chases and snatches them and scatters [the flock]." (John 10:12)

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:28-29)

"When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:39)

"The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks." (Acts 23:10)

"...save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." (Jude 23)

"She gave birth to a son, a male child, who 'will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.' And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne." (Revelation 12:5)

At Philippians 2:6, the sense is no different; this is in harmony with the definition of the word and Paul's argument. He says to reject selfish ambition. The pre-existent Jesus, who he provides as a model, rejects the selfish ambition of seizing equality with God, something he does not yet possess, just like in all the examples above.


But you are completely dropping one half of Paul's argument, wherein he says to reject selfish ambition, because in your interpretation there was no selfish ambition for Jesus to reject, and you've made the two clauses in verse 6 redundant; why did Paul need to say that Jesus was God (as you interpret it) twice? Why didn't he just say that Jesus existed in the form of God (which to you is proof enough that Jesus is God) and then move right on to verse 7, saying that he humbled himself?


But why else would you insist on a definition of that one word that is supported nowhere else in scripture?


Yes, and up until now I've been patiently answering all of the many proof texts thrown in my direction and awaiting to discuss my own proof texts. Are you willing?


Thank you for your patience.

TJ,
I don't even really know how to respond to your last post. You are repeatedly doing something that I politely said you shouldn't be doing...assuming that I pre-suppose Jesus is God. I may think that you pre-suppose, or are indoctrinated, with what you believe but I haven't said that about you because it is an assumption, and one that neither of us has any right to make. The whole context of Paul's speech in Phil. 2 is humility, not the difference between humility and selfish ambition. He gave an example of humility, not an example of the difference between humility and selfish ambition. You can give all the examples you want of the word "grasped" and how it is used in only one sense in scripture, but considering the word (yes - even the Hebrew word) has two meanings, then that does not automatically mean it is being used in the same sense here.If there was not the possibily of that word being used in the other sense (holding onto something), then that definition wouldn't even be there. Again, no one has God's form except God and if you think otherwise you need to provide proof of that - since the bible testifies to the fact that God is entirely unique. I read through your post and thought about replying more specifically to it, but you lost me when you said that there is more then One God. I would like the reference, page number included, to where Mounce's Dictionary says that there is more then One God. I would also like the references to Bible Commentators that say the same thing. And, please, feel free to let me know what sources you researched to come to the conclusions that you have. Also, I would like to know where you are getting your information regarding Jeremiah 32:18.

Thanks
hopesprings.

 

[hopesprings]

Hi Hopesprings



Although TJ12 has given sufficient illustrative reasons why the application of the title “Mighty” should not mean that one who it is applied to makes another with that same “Mighty” title one and the same entity, (the saviours for example) …to be specific, here is an example, be it in Trinitarian thought, where a descriptive title of excellence is given to a man that is also given to the Trinitarian’s God, Jesus… Though the following is based on the concept that Jesus is God, from a Trinitarian point of view, it shows us that “their God” and a man, shared a title:

In God’s word, Nebuchadnezzar was titled the “King of Kings”… Whether figuratively or literally, just like the shared title Alpha and Omega is figurative, yet accepted as applicable to Jesus, the title King of Kings is applied to Jesus and also to Nebuchadnezzar…Here:

“You, O king, the king of kings, you to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the might, and the strength and the dignity,” (Melech ha-M'lachim)
Daniel 2:37

In Judaism (and in Islam) this phrase: “Melech ha-M'lachim” was only meant to be applied to God, However, Babylonian and Persian kings are referred as King of Kings, and also, as seen, it is applied to the King in the Bible. This speaks volumes. We have a title applied to “God” yet it is given to humans.

Jesus was similarly given the title “King of Kings”.

“His title “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Basileus Basileon) Revelation 19:16

In the unlikely event that Jesus is God, (lets pretend) then God (“Jesus”) is titled ‘King of Kings’, and Nebuchadnezzar a mere human, is titled ‘King of Kings’ we have a case of one being given the same title that is given to “God“, or to be pedantic an identical title applied to your "person of God".

Of course, a title applied to one entity does not mean that another given the same title is the same entity as the one that initially was given that title. The same with the descriptive title Mighty. If one is titled Mighty God, such as Jesus is in Isaiah, and Jehovah God is called Mighty God too, we cannot assume that those ones to be one and the same entity, just as the titled King of Kings, Nebuchadnezzar is not the same entity as the King of Kings, Jesus.

"I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time - He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:13-16

"On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: King of kings and Lord of lords" Rev. 19:16

God is never called King of kings....he is called King of kings and Lord of lords (or...Lord of lords and King of kings - Rev. 17:14). Jesus is never called King of kings....he is called King of kings and Lord of lords. This is the same argument as the one above it....and something does smell a little fishy...

 

[TheMachine]

Wow! I just joined today and thanks to this thread my insomnia is cured! Thank you TJ and Feed. Although I would like to know if there is a cure for my eyes bleeding from all of this??? Yikes!

TJ I have a question for you, Is Ra88it your Dad or mentor from the Hall? Seems weird that he logs in today and hones in on this thread….just askin?
FeedM3 did you really want to discuss these questions or were you fishing for a fundementalist arguement from a JW superhero?


Ok TJ I have a few more questions. If you are Witnesses for Jehovah then why hang out trolling in a Christian site. You know everyone here believes that Christ is God (except you and old 88) and if so facto then perhaps start a JW chat room and away you go….or are you allowed to do that? I know ,I know you saw the thread and couldn’t resist rehashing the same old follow the bouncing ball, smoke laced rhetoric that has been spewed by others of the “One True Religion” for centuries….oops I mean 140 years .

You do wax eloquent ,which is great ,and you even have a wonderful slight of hand approach to limit the amount of offence you cause. But you know that your denial of Christ as God is offensive right? Christians of all denominations believe this, so by calling Jesus “a” god and not God is offensive.

On that point I do find it amazing that God finds Himself so inadequate that he requires a lower case god to deliver his people. It is even more surprising that God ,in His Almighty Awesomeness,would not only send in the lower god but have the lower gods' followers perform signs and wonders in the name of the lower god thus disenfranchising Himself further from both the people in which He chose and the Son that He bore to the world….this is weird.

I am not attacking you personally, I am just wondering what your point of all of this might be??? If you feel you have engaged the questions asked of you adequately then why belabour the point by trying to show all of us Triune believers how dumb we are for believing ? Or as you posted earlier how indoctrinated we are….. when if you look at it deeper, indoctrination into faith is scriptural , you know the verse and have quoted and or misquoted a better part of scripture throughout this thread so I will spare you all more quotes…..so to that point, if you say that as believers in the triune God we as Christians have been indoctrinated then you are saying that our parents listened and understood scripture so thanks….from my folks.
K I’m sure you will misinterpret everything I’ve said in this post and try to respew it with a twist back to me so please don’t, just know that I am currently praying for you and hope that God will give you peace!

The Machine

My second post and this is where it lands.....wow!and sorry.....

 

[feedm3]

FeedM3 did you really want to discuss these questions or were you fishing for a fundementalist arguement from a JW superhero?

The real reason is because I was discussing on another thread that was not of this topic. The other guy made alot of accusations, and a really long post bringing up this topic because of something I wrote. I took the time to answer this long post, and then he said, "this is off topic if you want to discuss further start a thread". SO I did, he has been here because I see his name in the bottom left corner from time to time, yet he never says anything.

So maybe he really did not want to discuss this, or feels TJ is doing a find job on his own, if that's the case, why bug me on other threads?

TJ just happened to answer, and I appreciate his answers.

as for fishing for an argument, yes to a certain extent, mainly the guy who I was already arguing with.

Oh and there is one cure for bleeding eyes - get rid of them. Lol

 

[TJ12]

Hello hopesprings,

I don't even really know how to respond to your last post. You are repeatedly doing something that I politely said you shouldn't be doing...assuming that I pre-suppose Jesus is God. I may think that you pre-suppose, or are indoctrinated, with what you believe but I haven't said that about you because it is an assumption, and one that neither of us has any right to make.

That is my opinion. I've stated clearly the reasons why I've come to this opinion based upon the types of arguments upon which you are rely, which don't in themselves prove that Jesus is God, but require that belief beforehand. I apologize that I've offended you; I won't state that opinion any further.

The whole context of Paul's speech in Phil. 2 is humility, not the difference between humility and selfish ambition. He gave an example of humility, not an example of the difference between humility and selfish ambition.

Here's the lead up again:

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (Philippians 2:3)

There's clearly a contrast made here: reject selfish ambition, embrace humility. How can this be done? Paul continues:

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped [or seized], but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:5-7)

This very same contrast, rejecting selfish ambition and embracing humility, was found in the case of Jesus when he rejected seizing equality with God and embraced taking the likeness of men. This is a very simple and clear analogy.

You can give all the examples you want of the word "grasped" and how it is used in only one sense in scripture, but considering the word (yes - even the Hebrew word) has two meanings, then that does not automatically mean it is being used in the same sense here.If there was not the possibily of that word being used in the other sense (holding onto something), then that definition wouldn't even be there.

hopesprings, please point out where in scripture that word means to 'hold onto something'. I asked you for this evidence last time, and you just repeated your assertion without proof. It never means that! It always means to seize or grasp at something not in one's possession.

I read through your post and thought about replying more specifically to it, but you lost me when you said that there is more then One God.

Then we should have begun with that--I thought you had read through at least some of the previous posts in this thread that made that clear; so perhaps that's the root of some of our misunderstandings. Even the passage you and I have spoken of here proves this:

"I said, 'You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.'" (Psalm 82:6)

That's Jehovah God speaking. In John 10, Jesus cites this passage as support that he can take on similar titles, 'god' and 'son of god', since he too, like those judges, has been entrusted with God's authority.

I would like the reference, page number included, to where Mounce's Dictionary says that there is more then One God. I would also like the references to Bible Commentators that say the same thing.

Sure, that's Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 297.

Here's what I quoted Dr. BeDuhn on earlier in this topic: "To many modern Christians, living in their safe, homogenous world of like-minded believers, the issue seems straightforward. There is the one God, and on the other side of a great gulf are all of the creatures. But in John's world, the god-category was not as sharply distinguished as it is for modern Christians, and there were all kinds of beings occupying the gray area between God and mortals. There were various angels and demi-gods to consider."--Truth in Translation, p. 130.

Bible commentator Matthew Henry writes of Exodus 7:1, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh; that is, my representative in this affair, as magistrates are called gods, because they are God’s vicegerents. He was authorized to speak and act in God’s name and stead, and, under the divine direction, was endued with a divine power to do that which is above the ordinary power of nature, and invested with a divine authority to demand obedience from a sovereign prince and punish disobedience."

The Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says this of Psalm 82, "When the celestial Lord of the domain thinks upon this destruction which injustice and tyranny are bringing upon the earth, His wrath kindles, and He reminds the judges and rulers that it is His own free declaratory act which has clothed them with the god-like dignity which they bear. They are actually elohim, but not possessed of the right of self-government; there is a Most High (עליו&#1503 to whom they as sons are responsible. The idea that the appellation (elohim), which they have given to themselves, is only sarcastically given back to them in Psalm 82:1 (Ewald, Olshausen), is refuted by Psalm 82:6, according to which they are really (elohim) by the grace of God."

The Darby translation of the Bible has this at Exodus 21:6, "then his master shall bring him before the judges..." The footnote for the word "judges" reads, "Lit. 'gods' elohim: so 22:8,9, etc. See John 10:34,35, and Ps. 82."

And, please, feel free to let me know what sources you researched to come to the conclusions that you have.

First and foremost the Bible. I've read Watchtower publications against the Trinity, Catholic and Protestant publications for the Trinity, the historical works against the Trinity by John Milton, Isaac Newton, William Whiston, Thomas Emlyn, Henry Grew, etc. As for these men, all of them recognized the very points I'm making here; they've been published at least as long as the Bible has been in the language of the people. The famous Erasmus, known especially for his critical-edition of the Greek New Testament that helped spark the Reformation, was accused of being anti-Trinitarian because his reconstruction of the orginal New Testament greatly weakened what little proof there was for the Trinity in the Bible by removing the little additions made over the centuries to support the Trinity (foremost among these is the spurious addition to 1 John 5:7). I've been in countless discussions over these matters and studied the evidence from both sides.

Also, I would like to know where you are getting your information regarding Jeremiah 32:18.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The NWT is helpful because it's a literal translation: "the [true] God, the great One, the mighty One, Jehovah of armies being his name."