6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[TJ12]

I am going to quote hopesprings
""Okay TJ...I'm done. Perhaps someone else on here is more qualified to debate with you...mighty is a qualifier used for God Almighty, and it is a qualifier used for Jesus. You are reasoning away the scriptrues, but I get that you don't see this...and your arguments do not really make sense...but I get that you don't see that either. Oh, and if you actually read Mark 10 you will see that Jesus didn't rebuke the people for calling him good..he simply asked WHY they were calling him good if only God is good...this is pretty straightfoward considering he then proceeded to answer the people. Just saying. Thanks for the conversation.""
go sit on the bench with him and shake my pom poms for Know1....

Alright, thanks BarlyGurl.

 

[TheMachine]

Why do "Witnesses of Jehovah" proceed to make God so small?

T.J you said I bring nothing to the thread....I brought a legit question(s).

Why would God create a lesser god as you have said, and then send in that lesser god to save mankind. And then instruct the mere humans to perform miracles and wonders in the name of a lesser god than the Almighty God Himself??? Is this not God raising an idol to the very people he instructed not to raise idols to? And can you show me where in the scripture people were instructed to perform miracles in the name of a representative of God? Was Jesus the Christ a sales rep for God? Why isn't Christ enough for all mankind?

I will answer any questions you may have after YOU answer all of my questions......and for the record I am not pursecuting you for your faith I am questioning your personal/watchtower logic.

The Machine

" I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers" ...Inigo Montoya

 

[feedm3]

Lol: "jew kil my father...prepare to die!"

 

[TJ12]

Hello TheMachine,

As long as you can put aside the condescension, I'll be happy to discuss these issues with you.

Why would God create a lesser god as you have said, and then send in that lesser god to save mankind.

This is what the Bible says, I'm merely holding to the Bible. Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God." (Rev. 3:14) He was with God and was "divine/a god." (John 1:1) I've been explaining these scriptures, as well as the pertinent grammatical questions, in this thread. Many other scriptures support this as well.

As for the question of why, Adam lost the right to perfect human life that he was given, which in turn meant that he lost it for us. Thus in order to keep his purpose for mankind to live on the earth forever, God sent his Son to become the equal of Adam, another perfect human being, to uphold and fulfill the Law perfectly, thereby earning back the right to everlasting human life for himself, and then to give that opportunity back to the human family (all who display faith) by dying a sacrificial death. The sacrifice of the perfect man Jesus covered over the sin by the perfect man Adam.

Is this not God raising an idol to the very people he instructed not to raise idols to?

Not at all, no more than raising a human king in Israel was. Jesus has been appointed by God, therefore, "every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11)

And can you show me where in the scripture people were instructed to perform miracles in the name of a representative of God?

Well, Aaron did this in his role as "prophet" to the representative "god" Moses.

Why isn't Christ enough for all mankind?

Because Christ isn't God, he was sent by God. His prayer is that we come to know his Father, whom he calls "the only true God." (John 17:3)


As for my questions, how about you field an answer at my question to hopesprings. Why did Jesus reject a title someone tried to give him, explaining that it should belong to God alone? (Mark 10:17-18)

Thanks.

 

[soldierofchrist4ever24]

Homoousia not to be confused with homoiousia
in Christ
brother Travis

 

[know1]

I do appreciate your posts and I did read them; that's certainly a lot to take in all at once. Here's a simple question for you. Why do you think that God didn't simply have it written somewhere in the Bible, just once, that three persons make up the one God? Something direct and simple like that?

I'll ask you some simple questions as well. Why doesn't Jehovah show himself to the world? You know He can and will. Why wait though. And why all the parables? Why do we have to study to show ourselves approved? Why does He tell us to seek Him? The fact is that God does hide himself and messages in the bible that is for his children and not to the unbelievers.
There are many hidden messages, codes, and types in the bible.
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Basically, God does not want to give His blessings to the unbelieving,evil, and hard hearted people. It is reserved for His children.


Do you use God's name, Jehovah?

Yes sir, I do. I use Jesus' name all the time.

 

[TJ12]

Hello know1,

Thanks for the response.

I'll ask you some simple questions as well. Why doesn't Jehovah show himself to the world?

Because he will do that on the appointed 'Day of Jehovah'. God is allowing Satan time to run this world to prove Satan's challenge, that mankind could be happier apart from God's rulership, absolutely wrong. There is a reason for this.

And why all the parables? Why do we have to study to show ourselves approved? Why does He tell us to seek Him? The fact is that God does hide himself and messages in the bible that is for his children and not to the unbelievers.

Well yes, Jesus showed up with parables and performed miracles, usually not announcing who he was because he wanted people to make that judgment for themselves. But the Jews knew well that Jehovah was one. (Deut. 6:4) Yet you're asking me to believe that all of his Jewish disciples completely changed their minds to now believe that Jehovah God was three, all via implicit, hidden sayings, with no one mentioning it explicitly? Likewise, none of the Jewish enemies to Christianity would ever mention this, probably the greatest of all heresies to their Jewish religion?

The concept of a three-in-one God simply was not around then. They believed that the Father alone was God Almighty, as Jesus himself explicitly taught. That's why Catholic resources, which can rely upon their Tradition of later times as being of equal authority to Scripture, candidly admit: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (New Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

[BarlyGurl]

Hello know1,

Thanks for the response.

Because he will do that on the appointed 'Day of Jehovah'. God is allowing Satan time to run this world to prove Satan's challenge, that mankind could be happier apart from God's rulership, absolutely wrong. There is a reason for this.

[/SIZE]
Well yes, Jesus showed up with parables and performed miracles, usually not announcing who he was because he wanted people to make that judgment for themselves. But the Jews knew well that Jehovah was one. (Deut. 6:4) Yet you're asking me to believe that all of his Jewish disciples completely changed their minds to now believe that Jehovah God was three, all via implicit, hidden sayings, with no one mentioning it explicitly? Likewise, none of the Jewish enemies to Christianity would ever mention this, probably the greatest of all heresies to their Jewish religion?

The concept of a three-in-one God simply was not around then. They believed that the Father alone was God Almighty, as Jesus himself explicitly taught. That's why Catholic resources, which can rely upon their Tradition of later times as being of equal authority to Scripture, candidly admit: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (New Catholic Encyclopedia)

Of course the "word" trinty wasn't established until after the end of the 4th century because the "bible" was held to be only the old testement and the Apocrypha until then... and only available for inspection by the council. Why is it hard to understand that took some time for a word to be formulated to sumerize the principal of the trinity?

 

[TheMachine]

Hello T.J.
Thank you for the response,




Quote:
“This is what the Bible says, I'm merely holding to the Bible. Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God." (Rev. 3:14) He was with God and was "divine/a god." (John 1:1) I've been explaining these scriptures, as well as the pertinent grammatical questions, in this thread. Many other scriptures support this as well. “


This is a fundamental issue we have right off the hop. Your bible says “a god”, every other bible says “was God”…on that basis our discussion is going to be a bit hard to go into.

Quote:
“Not at all, no more than raising a human king in Israel was. Jesus has been appointed by God, therefore, "every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11)”

This is a good step , but the connection of casting Christ above God in this manner is ,of course, the raising of an idol. When it is said that what you ask in my name shall be done to bring glory to the Father….Christ said I SHALL DO IT…how can that happen if the Son and Father are not One without it being an Idol? Christ just put Himself on par with God and even said that he would do it….When the 12 were out healing, They didn’t answer” In the name of Jesus Christ, Son of God but not a big G god but a small g god you are healed and make sure you thank the big G God for this”…….if Glory is given to the Father by the name of the Son I would submit that both are One.

Quote
“Well, Aaron did this in his role as "prophet" to the representative "god" Moses.”

I’ve been looking to see where Aaron performed miracles in the name of Moses…..I can’t find it?


Quote:
“Because Christ isn't God, he was sent by God. His prayer is that we come to know his Father, whom he calls "the only true God." (John 17:3)”


So in John 20:28-29 when he didn’t rebuke Thomas and in John 10: 30-33 when he states that He and the Father are One….I mean that is tough to comprehend but I’m pretty sure that I have never said that me and my Dad are one person….although I am my Fathers son, and I also am a father to my son….I guess that would make me both Father and Son at the same time, in the same place in the same person….If I can be that why can’t God?


“As for my questions, how about you field an answer at my question to hopesprings. Why did Jesus reject a title someone tried to give him, explaining that it should belong to God alone? (Mark 10:17-18)”


I will re-read your conversation with hopesprings and would be glad to answer for you…..thanks again.


The Machine

“You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles”…….Miracle Max

 

[know1]

Because he will do that on the appointed 'Day of Jehovah'. God is allowing Satan time to run this world to prove Satan's challenge,

Satan is not running this world, God is. The devil is just a puppet to God's overall plan. And God's plan is for the Bride of Christ to rein in, or overcome, this world as kings and priests of the Most High. He wants us to walk even as Jesus walked.

Well yes, Jesus showed up with parables and performed miracles, usually not announcing who he was because he wanted people to make that judgment for themselves. But the Jews knew well that Jehovah was one. (Deut. 6:4) Yet you're asking me to believe that all of his Jewish disciples completely changed their minds to now believe that Jehovah God was three, all via implicit, hidden sayings, with no one mentioning it explicitly? Likewise, none of the Jewish enemies to Christianity would ever mention this, probably the greatest of all heresies to their Jewish religion?

Exactly! This is one reason why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. The problem was, no one knew who Jesus was. That is why He had to tell them,
Joh_6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Joh_14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Why didn't Jesus tell them to believe in Michael the Arc Angel or some other angel or so called son of God? Why does God the Fathe tell the Jewish people to believe in Jesus? Because they simply didn't know.

The concept of a three-in-one God simply was not around then. They believed that the Father alone was God Almighty, as Jesus himself explicitly taught. That's why Catholic resources, which can rely upon their Tradition of later times as being of equal authority to Scripture, candidly admit: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (New Catholic Encyclopedia)[/QUOTE]

To me, it doesn't matter what history says or what period in history people started believing certain doctrines. What I look at is what I have been shown and see in scripture. If it is of God, everything will line up. If you have 10 scriptures against your one, then you either only know in part and/or your doctrine is wrong. If you don't know, then the best course would be to go with the majority of scripture.
Sorry, the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which came from the Catholic church are corrupt.There have been more than 2100 changes between them to line up with the Catholic faith. If it is not from the Textus Receptus, then I do not consider it to be scripture, therefore, not of God.

 

[know1]

go sit on the bench with him and shake my pom poms for Know1....

What are you saying here? What does this mean?

 

[soldierofchrist4ever24]

Of course, this seem to the be proof text for many. Slowing down.
First, God told Moses "I will make the a god in the eyes of Pharaoh". This is not calling Moses a literal god.

If it is to be taken Literally, then Pharaoh had a new god, and it was Moses.

It was an expression to covey the Power Moses would have the eyes of Pharaoh. This doe snot support you in any way, unless you are taking this literally, and believe Moses became Pharaoh's god, along with the many other false gods Pharaoh would have had.

As Psa 82, this is a way better argument then Exodus 7, I would stay here if I were you.

I agree, you have shown me another usage of the world in this book. Good Job, I cannot say it has one usage, even though I never did say that.

Now, the question is, what usage should I apply to Jesus. the "judges" usage or the Deity usage. That can only be answered by remote context, and what the Bible says about Jesus.

The Paraphrase I gave clearly gave an valid argument, I am not sure how much you thought about it before you dismissed it, because you below are bringing up questions that it answered.

This is no different than when Jesus was plucking the ears of corn or wheat on the Sabbath, and used david eating the shewbread to trip up the Jews.

He was not saying Because David did what was wrong, he can to.

Neither was he saying David did not sin, but He is.

He brought it up because they held David in such a high regard, and would never accuse him of doing wrong. Showing this point he ends with "he is Lord of the Sabbath", showing he is higher than David.

in this particular text, he is showing the Jews, how can you know that scripture even calls the wicked "judges" gods, thought they cannot do nothing godly, I stand here with the Power of God and you want to stone because of it.

His argument from the PSA was reenforcing what he said before, and was establishing the fact he was equal with God, why they wanted to stone him, and why he never denied what the were accusing him of.




It is explained above. If Jesus was saying he was a god, then why would he compare himself to corrupt people? think about it? If that makes mine fall apart then also yours.

Of course, when he came in Human form. He was subject, he gave up who he was in order to be put to death.

He had a will to do, the Fathers. HE came to set an example for us to follow, that is why he came in human form - Heb 2.

His example: Become dead to sin, submit to the Father's will. He showed us first, by him doing it.

This does not take away who he was, or who he is now.



I see what your trying to say, yet I do not agree with it. This title you say that is claiming to be, would make the Jews believe he was claiming to be equal with God.

Second, he never denied, just as he did not correct Thomas when he called him "My Lord and My GOd".

He did not tell anyone not to worship him, as Peter did, and as angels did.

I know JW try to put a different meaning that as well, and make it obsenince, yet it the same word every time, and if you all can find ONE exception to a rule, you try to bind that rule to every time words are found with Christ. So your interpretation method is to use the exception of the rule first, then the normal sense of the word when it comes to Christ.

I believe it could be saying as the man Jesus, he could be counted as Creation because he was born into the world by a woman, I dont deny that one bit.

Yet the firstborn does not mean time. As it does not with the dead. It is rank.

Now, did Jesus the man create all things? No

Did Jesus before he was a man? YES

Could Paul express this without referring to him in the state we knew him. Sure but it would not make sense to do so.

So Jesus is the creator of all things that are created. He did not create himself, and he is before all things that were created, does not mean this is what firstborn means, shows that when speaking of the dead.

Now, are you saying that because he became a man, created on earth, born of a woman, that means he MUST have been created before this?

Are you saying that because he was created on earth, and that mean he must have been created before he came to earth, that is why he did not really create all things, sense we know he did not create himself?

What are you getting here?

Defected, does not mean died. Satan is not dead. If death is a consequence of sin, and you believe Jesus could die, then he must have sinned as well.

Death passed to all men, because all have sinned. The garden is where we see the first sin, and it brought death.

SO I ask what is your support for believe before the earth was, that any of the beings could die?

Do you have any passages that show Satan is dead, angels dying, any other than humans?




So again, the world "lord" like "god" and "worship" also has multiple meanings even though it comes from the same word.

IS this the JW argument for everything? Does every single passage that proves Jesus deity always have another meaning somewhere else, so that exception MUST be the interpretation we use every time it is associated with Christ?

"Lord" - MASTER the is ONE MASTER
Just because Sarah called Abraham her master, does not mean it means something else, or that it excludes GOd from being master.

We have God and Christ - they are our MASTERS in the same sense. NOT in marriage, but in everything.

So if they are both MASTERS it does not mean one is a master of everything, the other in the sense of Abraham, that is just poor hermeneutics, and a forced conclusion to explain away passages.

Sense they are ONE, they are our Master in the same sense.

The same way that God says he is our savior, and Jesus is our Savior, they are one, Both classified as God, and there is no others.

He tells the Jews, he shows he was before creation, - "Before Abraham was I am"

And alludes to the eternal nature - "I Am" a name applied to God in Ex and Isa.



Same answer above

How could God appoint another and say their is none other? Or Jesus is God, and for that reason this statement did not exclude him.

I am starting to realize that every passage that points to Jesus' deity you are going to say the words have a different meaning than normal. then you are going search through your Bible and find any example possible of the word being used in another sense, so you can have an exception to the rule. Then you are going to act as if every time if find this word associated with Christ, I must use the exception to the rule to interpret it. That is a method of interpretation, and to me it is dishonest.
interesting, I will look further into that.



So now "mighty god" and "god" are two different levels of gods. Lol man, your hard to keep up with.

SO now there are 3 kinds of gods here - 1. Most high 2. Mighty. 3. just a normal appointed agent?

He is also called the "everlasting Father". Everlasting is the same as eternal, and Father is also applied to him, again showing HE and God are one, in nature.

So you all take an adjective "mighty" and make this a new level of a god? Are you serious? Can you not see how you are just reaching into anywhere and anything to deny the deity of Christ?

"mighty" is just an adjective. There are "mighty" men, "mighty animals" and Jesus is a/the "mighty God". This is getting ridiculous - no offense.

A mighty man, does not make him another type of man! It just tells about him.

poor hermeneutics Amen @ feedm3 this and Eisegesis is always a disaster, stay faithful bro.
in Christ
brother travis

 

[soldierofchrist4ever24]

Hello feedm3,


I dont care if you admit it or not. It plain what "he was made a god in the eyes of Pharaoh", your just worried I am trying to get you to admit something, and ignoring the easy wording and figurative sense it used to convey the power he would have over Pharaoh.

This is why it is not going anywhere.


Can you show me this? Because I have looked at three MSS and all say Theos. There is "with" and "was" but they have no effect on Theos.

So you are translating the first God as a name, and the second God as a class though they are idenical, and then using this deture as your reason?


This is an old worn out arguement that has already been proven wrong, and many Greek Scholars atest to that fact.

1. Barclay: Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
2. Bowman, Robert Bowman, All scholars agree that in John 1:1 "logos" is the subject and "theos" is the predicate. This sets the translation of John 1:1c as, (The Word was God" not "God was the Word". Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.)
3. Boyer: Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
4. Bruce: Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
5. Colwell: Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"
6. Feinberg: Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
7. Griesbach: Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
8. Johnson: Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."
9. Kaufman: Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
10. Mantey: "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
11. Mantey: "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
12. Mantey: Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
13. Mantey: the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
14. Martin: Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."
15. Metzger: Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
16. Mikolaski: Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
17. Nida:"With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.)
18. Rowley: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
19. Wescott: Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' ans so included in the unity of the Godhead."

Don't just read the comments above, read the grammatical reasons of why this is wrong.



yes and? He can be. And in Col one he can create all things and NOT be a part of it. Your trying to force an inconsistently by saying if he can be above something and part of it, then he cannot be above something and NOT part of it. Talk about false dichotomies.

This does not make me inconsistent. Above meaning superior.

Can a man be above other men and still be a part of them? YES

Can God be above man and NOT be a part of them? Yes

Does this mean inconsistency - NO

That is not akward at all. Again John 1. He came into the world (as a man) and the world was made by him (when in his divine nature) and the world knew him not.

Is that passage awkward to you , because it speaks of Jesus as a man in the world, and his role with the world in his divine nature?

I think yo are trying too hard find anything to make me seem inconsisnt and "akward" and you missing the easy explanation of these things.





What is with JW's? Do you really want to feel like you taught me something, or is it you want others to think that, or are your trying to fool me? Or does it make you feel your "winning"? or what?

Show me ONE time in any of the threads we have been discussing where I claimed that god/God is not, and cannot be used in any other sense than what it is used with the Father.

If you can show me that, then you have the right to say you have helped me adopt a wider view.

Do you think I did not know about Psa 82 before I talked with you? I pondered that for years. I definitely did not think they were God's as in the Father and Christ. I settled on "judges", long ago, but still needed to brush up on why it was used in John.

So please drop the act, or show where I said this, because that truly is annoying.

No I wont accuse you of ignoring me then, I will try to give some kind of emphasis as to what I would like an answer on.


you've given me the test? Lol. Please dont try and make it seem you have me failing " a test" by asling me to find what is not there. Or at least give a valid test first. I am starting to think this is all about show.

I dont need to find that, it may not be there, and again that does not mean that it proves your point.

Now you show me where Jesus is called "a god". Not "the mighty God"as it says, but simply just "a god" like Moses was.

Oh and Why is he called the everlasting Father and why did he take use the name "I am"??

Here is some thing to consider my brother as i have read alot of these posts, and i find you to be very consistent regardless of what your critic say. with that in mine i just happend to be reading my greek new testament in the book of Colossians and found this interesting, and certainly pray it will be of use, since your critic appears to like to go to the greek for his convenience.

i have even did a lot of the homework for the both of you, and taken the time to transliterate it from the greek to make it easier on the eyes.... i will also put what it means in english below.

Colossians2:9 hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos
For in him dwells all the fullness of the deity bodily

Also Elohim the first name used for God in the scriptures not only means creator but judge as well, but we all know He is the only source of justice period. Hope this helps even a lil brother feedm3 take care.
in Christ
brother travis

 

[soldierofchrist4ever24]

[FONT=&quot]

What’s significant here is to recognize that by saying the Word is “divine,” this comes nowhere close to saying that the Word is “a god.” As I’ve pointed out in the past, [/FONT]this passage is not simply implying that the Logos is “divine” or “god-like” as you would espouse, because John does not use the adjectival (θεῖος [“divine”]) here (as it is used in 2 Peter 1.4, a verse you cited), but rather uses the noun form (θεὸς [“God”]); however, that is not to say that nouns cannot, within their semantic domain, convey qualities. Take for example, John 3.6,

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
​

The idea here has absolutely nothing to do with identification of any sort (“the spirit,” “a spirit”), but everything to do with that of predication. More specifically, the nouns (“flesh,” “spirit”) here function in a purely qualitative sense, without a definite or indefinite semantic force. The context of the passage in view is about the inherent nature of sinful flesh (John 3.6a) in contrast to the new nature of man in the process of regeneration (John 3.6b). Likewise, a similar idea being portrayed is found in 1 John 1.5 (“God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all”), where it is God's essence and nature that is being described in contrast to “darkness.” That is, God has all the qualities, and attributes of light – He is just, holy, and good -- therefore, light is an attribute/characteristic inhering within God. Further examples include, but are not limited to, John 6.63 (“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life”), 1 John 4.8 (“…because God is love”), Acts 16:21 (“…are not lawful for us as Romans”), 2 Corinthians 11:22 (“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I”),et al.

With that being said, the Trinitarian approach to John 1.1 does not emphasize the identity of the Word (thus, the reason for the anarthrous θεὸ&#962, but stresses the nature of the Word. Call attention to what Henry Alford, a 19th c. Anglican theologian wrote in his commentary on this passage,

“The omission of the article before θεὸς is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the word might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεὸς must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, -not ὁ θεὸς, ‘the Father,’ in Person. . . . as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1.14], σὰρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν [John 1.1c], θεὸς expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ [“In the beginning”]: -that He was very God.”—Henry Alford
​

The point Alford is driving at here in his comparison of vv. 1 (θεὸς ἦ&#957, and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετ&#959, is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word”) as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1.1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject. In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word, and this is precisely what we as Trinitarians believe. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God – everything that makes God, God – the Word also possesses. This text then, is teaching the equality of nature between the Father, and the Son (c.f. Hebrews 1.3).

Further illustrations can be found in the following statements: (1) "Eve was with Man, and Eve was Man,” and (2) “Helen Reddy sang, ‘I am Woman.'" In both of these statement Eve is not to be equated with the one whom she is “with,” nor is Helen equated with “Woman,” rather, the qualities, characteristics, and nature of "Man" are predicated to Eve (thus, Even is fully human), and all the qualities of “Woman” are fully predicated to Helen. In this same sense, the qualities of God are fully predicated to the Word in John 1.1c.

What I think should be pointed out is that though Jehovah’s Witnesses often cite Moffatt’s translation of the New Testament (which does translate John 1.1 adjectively, “the Word was divine”) in support of the NWT’s rendition of the text (“the Word was a god”), but what they often fail to understand (as do you) is that these translations underscore the Trinitarian understanding of the text. In Moffatt’s own words: “ 'The Word was God... And the Word became flesh,' simply means the Word was divine... And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." (Jesus Christ the Same [Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945], p. 61

Well done, amen brother its all about substance,
in Christ
brother Travis

 

[BarlyGurl]

What are you saying here? What does this mean?

ummmmm... i was cheering for you...

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

The Coptic version of John 1:18 is actually a fuse of the two variant readings "only-begotten son" and "only-begotten god", which in Greek are separated by one letter. But because the Coptic word 'ouwt' (which means "only") is less nuanced than the Greek 'monogenes' ("only-begotten") it has been dropped in relation to the word "god" because only the Father, in the Coptic text, is called the "only God" ('ouwt noute'). The loss of the nuance between 'only-begotten' and 'only' would have caused confusion in Coptic and made Jesus out to be 'the only God', so, significantly, the translators did not carry that over.

[FONT=&quot]Sorry I did not respond sooner, this is the first real chance I’ve had to read through your comments, and offer any kind of response. There is no doubt, a ton of stuff to cover, so I’ll try to refrain from writing lengthy responses.

Of course this is pure speculation at best, and there’s no hard or sufficient evidence which proves that the Sahidic is indeed a conflated text. Of course, if the Coptic scribes did fuse the two variant readings together, it would only make sense that there would also be copies of a conflated Greek text; however, no existing MSS from this geographic locale show any evidence of John 1.18 being conflated, nor does the Boharic Coptic follow any such tradition. Your argument seems to ignore the very fact that just four verses earlier in John 1.14 (also see Luke 9.38, Hebrews 11.17), where there is no possibility of a conflated text, these very same Sahidic scribes translated MONOGENHS just as they did in John 1.18, referring to Christ as the “only Son/Child” (“nouShre nouwt”).[/FONT]

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

We can get into that discussion if you'd like, but the early church fathers were, by and large, subordinationalists. Clement of Alexandria, for example, who was the teacher of Origen, uses the word 'protoktistos' ("first-created") for Jesus as a synonym to 'prototokos' ("firstborn") as used in Colossians 1:15.

[FONT=&quot]It would be interesting to find out what you mean by “subordinationalists.” There’s quite a bit of difference between what is known as Subordinationism (an ontological difference between the Father, and the Son), and subordination (the Son’s submission to the Father). These two are in no way synonymous, but are often confused for one another.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If what you mean is that the Early Church Father’s believed of the Son’s submission to the Father then to this I would agree. However, if what you are suggesting is that they believed that the Son was ontological inferior to the Father, then I would say that such a statement would be subject to much debate. You mentioned Clement’s use of Colossians 1.15, but to this you’re reading your own theological presuppositions into the citation itself without consideration of all the other things Clement taught, such as the eternality of the Word, and the Word’s equality of substance with the Father (Fragment III, Comments on the First Epistle of John). [/FONT]

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

[FONT=&quot]

Were you aware that in every place John uses this word, it's with the meaning 'beginning', as in first in terms of time? Look them up for yourself: John 1:1, 2; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5, 6; Revelation 21:6; 22:13.

However, what [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is left out is that each time that the Apostle John applies this term to an individual that it is used as a title of Deity (c.f. Revelation 21.6, 22.13), and it is no doubt that this is precisely how John intends it here at Revelation 3.14. As the One through whom all things which have “come into being” have their place in existence (John 1.3, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being&#8221, it can rightfully be said of Christ, as John does throughout the Book of Revelation, that He is “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 22.13a), “the First and the Last” (Rev. 1.17, 2.8, 22.13b), “the Beginning and the End” (Rev. 3.14, 22.13c). All of creation originated “in” Him, came into existence “through” Him, and was made “for” Him, both, the present age (Heb. 1.10-11, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth… they will perish, but you remain&#8221, and the age to come (Heb. 1.3, “through whom also He made the ages” [c.f. Heb. 2.5]). Christ is the starting point, the origininator, the Beginning of the creation of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Were you aware that when this word is used in terms of rank, it's always accompanied by other terms relating to power or authority, terms which are absent from Revelation 3:14? Look them up for yourself: Luke 12:11; 20:20; Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15; Titus 3:1.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Though I don't affirm this precise interpretation ("Ruler of the creation of God"), it does certainly have merit, and extremely good reasons supporting it. You argue that when the NT uses the term in reference to rulership/authority/power, it is always accompanied by other key related terms. However, this argument is really quite weak, and the same cannot be said of the LXX, i.e., Hosea 1.11, Nehemiah 9.17, et al. Foremost, whenever [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]arch[/FONT][FONT=&quot] refers to a person, most of the time it has something to do with rule, dominion, or authority of some type, and this is backed up from the LXX (as well as secular usage), where arche is used approximately 75 times to translate the Hebrew term for “ruler” (see G. K. Beale, the Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If this text is taken to refer to Christ as the “Ruler of the creation of God,” this then would comport well with Revelation 1.5 ("and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth"), which attributes two of exact titles that is later given to Him in Revelation 3.14 ("To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the Ruler of the creation of God"). This also comports well with one of the most famous Messianic prophecies (Isaiah 9.5-6), where the LXX uses arch for Christ’s rule.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]

Were you aware that the standard Greek lexicon for New Testament Greek, usually referred to as the BDAG, says of Revelation 3:14 that "the [meaning] beginning=first created is linguistically probable"?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And... ? The entry found in BDAG does not indicate that the underlying meaning of arch as it is found in Revelation 3.14 was "first created," and it certainly doesn't say that "first created" was the "probable" meaning of Revelation 3.14. The definition of “beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is indicated by the bold Roman font “the first cause.”[/FONT]

 

[NWL]

Hello Know1,

Satan is not running this world, God is. The devil is just a puppet to God's overall plan. And God's plan is for the Bride of Christ to rein in, or overcome, this world as kings and priests of the Most High. He wants us to walk even as Jesus walked.

Know1, TJ was correct, Satan is ruling this world, for you to call yourself a Christian you too must believe this scriptural truth.

(2 Cor 4:4 NLT) “...Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe...”

Also the fact that Satan was able to offer the Kingdoms of the world to Jesus as a temptation shows that he is in control and ruling over them.

(Luke 4:5, 6) So he brought him [Jesus] up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time; 6 and the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it.

(John 14:1) Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God believe also in me

Why didn't Jesus tell them to believe in Michael the Arc Angel or some other angel or so called son of God? Why does God the Father tell the Jewish people to believe in Jesus? Because they simply didn’t know.

Just because Jesus said to people to put faith in him doest show that Jesus was somehow trying to show that he was part of the Godhead.

Jesus not once claimed to be Almighty God, when Jesus asked for people to "believe in him" the only thing he wanted them to believe was that he was "The Son of God". What you have to do sometimes is picture yourself there with Jesus and pretend that your listening to the things that he’s speaking and see if they make sense when you apply your thinking.

Let’s do this quickly, you believe that when Jesus said “Exercise faith in God, exercise faith also in me” in John 4:1 that he was trying to explain that he was part of the Godhead, now imagine yourself there and Jesus saying it;

Jesus: “Exercise faith in God, exercise faith also in me” (John 14:1)

Know1: “I get it Jesus, you’re trying to say that your God too, that you part of a Trinity and completely equal with the Father”

And now a "couple minutes" later Jesus also says to you; (John 14:28)

Jesus: “The Father is greater than I am.”

Now wouldn’t that throw you off, of what Jesus just newly reviled to you, would the greatest teacher who ever lived contradict himself minutes later after revealing an ultimate truth!? Of course not!

So in answer to your question, “why does God the Father tell the Jewish people to believe in Jesus?” It is simple, John himself said it in the same book:

(John 3:17) “...For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned....”

So Jesus told people to believe in him simply because they would get saved by Jehovah, through him, Jesus. You also need to ask yourself why didn't Jesus reveal the Holy Spirit as well in John 14:1 if you assumption of the scripture is correct?

To me, it doesn't matter what history says or what period in history people started believing certain doctrines. What I look at is what I have been shown and see in scripture. If it is of God, everything will line up. If you have 10 scriptures against your one, then you either only know in part and/or your doctrine is wrong. If you don't know, then the best course would be to go with the majority of scripture.

What you don’t get Know1, is that TJ has already revealed the truth of the scriptures here, and that the majority of the scriptures favor Witnesses and not Christendom, look at the WHOLE Old Testament for example, a Jewel for witnesses but as for backing the Trinity it does nothing, as the Old testament (and the New Test) doesn't teach the Trinity! Over and over it says that God is One, Jehovah.

Don’t take my word for it Know1, search and provide me with one, just one single scripture that says that God is three.

 

[TJ12]

Hello GraceBeUntoYou,

Thanks for your response.

[FONT=&quot]It would be interesting to find out what you mean by “subordinationalists.” There’s quite a bit of difference between what is known as Subordinationism (an ontological difference between the Father, and the Son), and subordination (the Son’s submission to the Father). These two are in no way synonymous, but are often confused for one another.[/FONT]

Here's what one scholar says of the controversy in the fourth century:

"We will simply add in this place, that the Arians constantly appealed to tradition as in their favor, and asserted that they held the ancient doctrine. This assertion must not be taken in the most rigid sense; though, to acertain extent, it was true. The Arians could quote passages from the old writers, exceedingly embarrassing to their opponents. On some points, as the supremacy of the Father and his priority of existence, tradition was clearly in their favor; and they could say, with truth, that they held the old faith." (The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, 1860, p. 191)

That this was true can even be seen in the fact that the works of Origen, whom you mentioned last time, made the later Trinitarians very uncomfortable: "Of the other works of Origen, one of the most considerable is the four books 'Of Principles,' written before he left Egypt. The orginal of the work, fragments excepted, is lost. It was translated into Latin, at the close of the fourth century, by Rufinus; who, under the absurd pretext that it had been corrupted by the Arians, took the liberty of altering what did not please him." (pp. 141-2)

Similarly, the Encyclopedia Britannica admits this, "the Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter at the beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority." (Vol. 23, p. 963)

[FONT=&quot]

You mentioned Clement’s use of Colossians 1.15, but to this you’re reading your own theological presuppositions into the citation itself without consideration of all the other things Clement taught, such as the eternality of the Word, and the Word’s equality of substance with the Father (Fragment III, Comments on the First Epistle of John).

[/FONT]
Or perhaps you're reading your presupposition into the text so that you overlook the fact that Clement viewed Jesus as the 'first created'. I don't pretend that these early church fathers, who had been incorporating Greek philosophy into their theology, to be teaching everything I believe about God and Jesus, but it's categorically false to pretend that they taught everything you believe about God and Jesus as well. This was the developing stage of what would become the Trinity. Much of what they taught would be heresy to you.

Not long ago I went through all instances of the description of God and Jesus found in the works of Irenaeus to show a pastor that was saying essentially the same thing as you are here, that the early church fathers taught what you believe, was false. He was forced to admit that that wasn't quite the case. Just like the ancient arians, I "could quote passages from the old writers, exceedingly embarrassing" to the Trinitarian position.

[FONT=&quot]However, what [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is left out is that each time that the Apostle John applies this term to an individual that it is used as a title of Deity (c.f. Revelation 21.6, 22.13), and it is no doubt that this is precisely how John intends it here at Revelation 3.14.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
This is more title matching that disregards context. I explained the faults in this in my original post to the 6 questions.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Christ is the starting point, the origininator, the Beginning of the creation of God.

[/FONT]
So you're defining "the beginning" in Revelation 3:14 as meaning "the originator". Please show me one example where 'arche' ever has this meaning in scripture! It everywhere means 'the first part' of something.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

You argue that when the NT uses the term in reference to rulership/authority/power, it is always accompanied by other key related terms. However, this argument is really quite weak, and the same cannot be said of the LXX, i.e., Hosea 1.11, Nehemiah 9.17, et al.

No, I never said that it was true of all the instances found in the LXX, but you don't find it the least bit significant that in the NT, written hundreds of years after the LXX, whenever the term is used in this secondary sense (meaning the first among the people), it is [/FONT]always in company with related terms except in this one instance?

The meaning "beginning", as in the first in terms of time, is the primary meaning of 'arche'. There should be good, solid reasons that cause us to understand it differently than the primary sense. Given that "beginning" makes sense in the immediate context, and that John (and really Jesus, the speaker) seems to be alluding to Proverbs 8:22, I see no reason to overturn the default meaning.

[FONT=&quot]

This also comports well with one of the most famous Messianic prophecies (Isaiah 9.5-6), where the LXX uses arch for Christ’s rule.

[/FONT]
Actually, I'd say that it comports far better with Proverbs 8:22, which is why the UBS4 Greek text cites that very verse for Revelation 3:14.


[FONT=&quot]

The entry found in BDAG does not indicate that the underlying meaning of arch as it is found in Revelation 3.14 was "first created," and it certainly doesn't say that "first created" was the "probable" meaning of Revelation 3.14. The definition of “beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is indicated by the bold Roman font “the first cause.”

[/FONT]
GraceBeUntoYou, have you looked this up? Yes, it lists Revelation 3:14 under "the first cause" which is close to your "originator" definition, but what's missing? There are no other scriptural examples of this definition! Furthermore, it turns around and completely undermines that definition further because it most certainly does say, "Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning=first created is linguistically prob." You are 100% wrong about that.

I'm interested to know how you'd respond to this post, when you get the time: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...uestions-jehovahs-witnesses-7.html#post829355


Thanks again for your participation.