6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[cfultz3]

Hello cfultz3,


That's a matter of context. Obviously, Jehovah God often is called such, but this doesn't mean that Sarah was equating Abraham with Jehovah by "calling him 'lord,'" and neither was Peter implying that Christian wives should have rival "lords" to Jesus Christ by featuring Sarah as an example for them to follow. (1 Peter 3:5-6)

Jehovah God installed Jesus as the "Lord", or Master, for all Christians. This unique assignment is for a purpose however, "For [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death...When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:25-26, 28)

Yet if there is but one Lord, then how can God install Jesus as Lord? Either there are two or one.

I won't debate this with you because, as I have learned, no good can come out of debating two opposite ends. Also understand that you are saying that Jesus is a temportary Lord, and will point you back to my first post you responded to.

When that time comes, shall the Word cease from being the Word? Shall our High Priest cease from being our High Priest, the Son from being the Son, the Lamb from being the Lamb, etc.....? Nay, I say. He is Lord of lords, and King of kings and His throne shall abide into the Age of all ages.

 

[know1]

That wasn't my question. My question was: why does Jesus reject the title "Good Teacher" on the basis that such a title should belong to God alone?

Sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying because I wrote it poorly. I was answering your question with a question. Trying to raise a point. And that being that Jesus was saying that it is the Spirit of God the Father in Him that is good and therefore He pointed or directed it to the Father that was in Him, causing Him to both will and to do of His good pleasure.

The answer is completely in line with everything I've been saying up until this point. As the head of the congregation, each individual member represents Jesus. Thus, within the scriptural concept of agency, what one does to one of Jesus' representatives he does to Jesus himself, who sent them forth. Jesus, in turn, was the representative of God, who sent him forth.[/QUOTE]

Again, I apologize for not having read everything you wrote, thereby not knowing where you stand on some issues. Fact is, like I said earlier, I only read some of what you wrote.
So what you are saying basically, is that it would be like going against a family member. Anyone attacking a family member just attacked you. I think I understand that concept.
But scripture shows that Jesus is in us and we in Him. Not just a representative of Him but IN Him.
What I was saying concerning our righteousness before God is that it is not of us but of Jesus. The bible says that our righteousness is not our own. Therefore we are not righteous as representatives of Him but as Children. And we are not Children of the Most High until a part of Jesus dwells in us.
Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
This describes what takes place in the spirit world when one is born again. When God's Spirit is in you, then God's righteousness is your righteousness. Even though it is yours, it in not of you, but of God.

 

[TJ12]

Hi cfultz3,

Yet if there is but one Lord, then how can God install Jesus as Lord? Either there are two or one.

You don't make the same argument for Abraham. Regardless, I'll refer you to my answer found at the bottom of this post: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...uestions-jehovahs-witnesses-6.html#post827843

Also understand that you are saying that Jesus is a temportary Lord, and will point you back to my first post you responded to.

You do realize that I didn't say that, but that you inferred that from the verse I quoted that Paul wrote under inspiration, don't you? Are you saying Paul is teaching that Jesus is accursed?

 

[TJ12]

Hello know1,

Thanks for your reply,

Sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying because I wrote it poorly. I was answering your question with a question. Trying to raise a point. And that being that Jesus was saying that it is the Spirit of God the Father in Him that is good and therefore He pointed or directed it to the Father that was in Him, causing Him to both will and to do of His good pleasure.

If that is the case, then why did the man drop the "Good" from the title the next time he addresses Jesus? (Verse 20) Does this mean that this this sincere man didn't understand Jesus or disagreed with him? If he didn't understand Jesus, then Jesus didn't do much after that to help him to learn how to gain everlasting life; if he disagreed, then it's very strange that he'd continue to ask for Jesus' authoritative view.

Really the only explanation that makes sense is that Jesus was objecting, saying (as you or I would if someone addressed us in too great a manner), 'Why do you call me that, only God should be called that.' The man got the point and refrained from using that title from then on.

But scripture shows that Jesus is in us and we in Him. Not just a representative of Him but IN Him.

Here's a simple question before I address this. Do you agree with the Catholic Church that the bread and wine are literally the blood and body of Christ? Or do you believe they are emblems meant to symbolize those things?

 

[cfultz3]

Hi cfultz3,


You don't make the same argument for Abraham. Regardless, I'll refer you to my answer found at the bottom of this post: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...uestions-jehovahs-witnesses-6.html#post827843


You do realize that I didn't say that, but that you inferred that from the verse I quoted that Paul wrote under inspiration, don't you? Are you saying Paul is teaching that Jesus is accursed?

Perhaps a distinction between titles of the Word and titles of the Son will make clear that the Word's throne is from all eternity and that the Word returned to His throne not only as the eternal Word but also as the gloried Son.



Jehovah God installed Jesus as the "Lord", or Master, for all Christians. This unique assignment is for a purpose however, "For [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death...When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:25-26, 28)


It is true that the Father send the Word, but the Word created all things. Shall our Creator be subject to Himself, or shall the Son, who is the incarnated Word, return all things back to God the Father? Shall the Son therefore loose His eternal throne? Who then shall be Lord of lords and King of kings?

And it was said to the angels to worship towards the Son. And we know that God is only worthy of worsip. Has God created a god for us to worship in His place?

So then I ask, is the Son's Lordship temorary or shall His Kingdom be into the Age of the ages? And we are told o' so many times, the LORD (Jehovah) is our Savior. Jesus is our Christ (Savior). If Jesus is not God, then God is not our Savior and therefore, Scripture is to be found with lies in it. Either Jesus means 'Jehovah is our salvation' and Christ means 'the Savior', or else we have been duped into believing that Jesus Christ is not the Savior of the old Testament when He Himself has said that He is our Savior.

 

[know1]

But there's a distinct difference. The Jews already believed that a Messiah was going to show up, the question was just was it this Jesus character or not? But there's no change in teaching here or some new revelation.

Different, yes, but the purpose. I it not given to those who are not His Children.
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.
That means that it is not revealed to them.
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.


The doctrine that God is three would have been a major new revelation and it is nowhere mentioned! It'd be just as important as the fact that Jesus is the Christ, which scripture does explicitly say and which Jesus himself revealed at times. Nowhere, however, does any Bible writer say that God is three.

True, but who are the only ones that saw it? Certainly not the Jewish leaders. And Yes, the bible says it in many places but you won't see it because it is not given to you to see. I'm not trying to be mean but fact is, you see me as being just as blinded as I do the JWs.

You may think that you're going solely on the Bible alone, but if you grew up on an isolated island with only a Bible and no church to explain it to you, there's no way you'd come to the conclusion on your own that it teaches God is three. I honestly believe that 100%.

Perhaps what you are saying here is true but like you, I've heard other versions, such as yours, and have chosen to eradicate all bias when I seek God on something I don't know about, that I may know the truth. If you hold to a doctrine because you heard it from someone else, because it sounded good and/or made sense to you, if you seek God on that subject, you will block yourself from receiving the truth. Therefore, I have put all doctrines at one time or another on trial as false until proven true. Some subjects more than once.
I am signing off, enjoyed the discussions.

 

[know1]

Here's a simple question before I address this. Do you agree with the Catholic Church that the bread and wine are literally the blood and body of Christ? Or do you believe they are emblems meant to symbolize those things?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE]

That sir, I do not know. I have not sought God on the matter as yet. By-the-way, I'm not Catholic, I don't agree with many of their doctrines of faith. Nice talking with you.

 

[cfultz3]

Perhaps a distinction between titles of the Word and titles of the Son will make clear that the Word's throne is from all eternity and that the Word returned to His throne not only as the eternal Word but also as the gloried Son.



Jehovah God installed Jesus as the "Lord", or Master, for all Christians. This unique assignment is for a purpose however, "For [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death...When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:25-26, 28)


It is true that the Father send the Word, but the Word created all things. Shall our Creator be subject to Himself, or shall the Son, who is the incarnated Word, return all things back to God the Father? Shall the Son therefore loose His eternal throne? Who then shall be Lord of lords and King of kings?

And it was said to the angels to worship towards the Son. And we know that God is only worthy of worsip. Has God created a god for us to worship in His place?

So then I ask, is the Son's Lordship temorary or shall His Kingdom be into the Age of the ages? And we are told o' so many times, the LORD (Jehovah) is our Savior. Jesus is our Christ (Savior). If Jesus is not God, then God is not our Savior and therefore, Scripture is to be found with lies in it. Either Jesus means 'Jehovah is our salvation' and Christ means 'the Savior', or else we have been duped into believing that Jesus Christ is not the Savior of the old Testament when He Himself has said that He is our Savior.

If Christ is but an angel, do angels worship angels? Does God command this sort of worship of His angels?

 

[TJ12]

Hello again cfultz3,

It is true that the Father send the Word, but the Word created all things.

Look at Proverbs 8:22-30 for further explanation on the role of the Son in creation. This is connected by Revelation 3:14 and the Son's being called the 'wisdom of God'. (Col. 1:24)

Shall the Son therefore loose His eternal throne?

I'll just quote inspired scripture: "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:28)

And it was said to the angels to worship towards the Son. And we know that God is only worthy of worsip.

Wrong. I've been through this in this very thread ad nauseum. Please go back and read some of it. Or just look up 1 Chronicles 29:20 and see that God and his appointed king David were 'worshipped' together by the Israelites. This establishes the pattern through which Jesus Christ, God's appointed king, is to be 'worshipped'.

So then I ask, is the Son's Lordship temorary or shall His Kingdom be into the Age of the ages?

The effects of the Messianic kingdom will last forever because it forever undoes the damage of the rebellion by Satan. But the Bible puts a time limit on it even by qualifying it as a millenial rule. (Revelation 20:4)

And we are told o' so many times, the LORD (Jehovah) is our Savior. Jesus is our Christ (Savior). If Jesus is not God, then God is not our Savior and therefore, Scripture is to be found with lies in it.

This is yet more title-matching, which is the go-to tactic here. Yet again, Jehovah saves through Jesus. God is the source, Jesus is the agent/instrument. Both are saviors in those entirely separate senses. Look up the 'saviors' Othniel and Ehud at Judges 3:9,15. Your logic here would make them God as well because it completely disregards the role of the agent in God's activities. This is the common flaw through most of these arguments here; a failure to recognize that Jesus is first and foremost God's representative.

Just to make this clear, again, saying person X did event Z and person Y did event Z, does not make person X the same as person Y. I've demonstrated this many times, in many ways.

 

[cfultz3]

You see my point, two oppositie ends going in two different directions will never meet in the middle. So then, what is the point of debate of opposing religions? Nothing I will say will change your mind and visa versa. I have presented my argumentl and you have presented your argument. The point of it all, they who will see will see and they who are blind will not see. If one says the Lord is Lord and the other says he is lord, there is no compromise. If God says, 'Your throne, O God, is into the Ages of the ages', then who am I to call my God a liar when He calls the Son God.

I bow out of this conversation and I hope and pray that those who are reading will receive this Truth.

 

[TJ12]

Hello know1,

Thanks for the reply.

Different, yes, but the purpose. I it not given to those who are not His Children.

Yes, but still the Bible itself says explicitly that Jesus is the Messiah, that he is the Christ, does it not? It does not say explicitly that God is three-in-one. That is where you have to be very, very careful that you're not reading something into scripture that isn't there.

If someone says Jesus was not the Messiah, there's all kinds of verses that just don't 'hint' at it, they outright say 'Jesus is the Christ'. Not so with the Trinity, you have to piece together all types of verses where it's supposedly implied, and really, you have to be looking for it in the first place.

I mean, my goodness, we're on page 14 of this discussion now and do you notice how virtually no one tries to include that oft' forgotten member of the Trinity in this discussion? Is the Holy Spirit the Ringo Starr of the Trinity? If you approached the Bible with no assumptions of what it taught you would not come away saying 'Of course it teaches that three persons make up the one God.' Yet everyone here claims to be going on the Bible alone as the source of their belief about the Triune God, and that's simply not true.

True, but who are the only ones that saw it? Certainly not the Jewish leaders. And Yes, the bible says it in many places but you won't see it because it is not given to you to see. I'm not trying to be mean but fact is, you see me as being just as blinded as I do the JWs.

Think about this, you compared the 'hidden' teaching that God is three to the 'hidden' teaching that Jesus is the Christ, again implying above that it's only those without faith (like the Jewish leaders) that didn't know it. But in the Bible itself the Christians knew it and they stated it, again and again. Why didn't they state that God is three if they knew that as well? They just never got around to it? Why couldn't Paul just write the basic Nicene Creed right in his own letters were he goes to great lengths explaining the mysteries of God?

You're brushing over this as if it doesn't matter. It matters, it goes to the true intent of the Bible writers and what God himself inspired them to teach.

Perhaps what you are saying here is true but like you, I've heard other versions, such as yours, and have chosen to eradicate all bias when I seek God on something I don't know about, that I may know the truth. If you hold to a doctrine because you heard it from someone else, because it sounded good and/or made sense to you, if you seek God on that subject, you will block yourself from receiving the truth. Therefore, I have put all doctrines at one time or another on trial as false until proven true. Some subjects more than once.
I am signing off, enjoyed the discussions.

I truly hope that you will re-evaluate this doctrine prayerfully, along with Jesus' prayer that you and I come to know his Father, "the only true God." (John 17:1,3)

Thank you again for your comments and please feel free to respond if/when you'd like. I very much appreciate your sincerity.

 

[TJ12]

Thank you, cfultz3.

I hope you will go back and read some of what I've explained in more detail earlier on in this topic. I truly believe some of the premises on which you're basing your conclusions are demonstrably incorrect.

 

[ra88itt]

That's the point tho..it is not an 'additional title' it is ONE title. God isn't called King of kings PERIOD. He is called King of kings and Lord of lords. You are dissecting his titel just like TJ12 has done. It is ONE title. And this ONE title is only used of God and Jesus. Again!

Hi Hopesprings

Thank you for your input. Sorry that I'm days behind, I don't get a lot of spare time...

I think that in Revelation 19:6 the conjunction ‘and’ separates the titles. It’s not just one title. Furthermore, to emphasise that fact the same titles are given to Jesus in Revelation 17:14 ...In Koine Greek it reads: Kyrios Kurion, (Lord of Lords)…then the verb estin “(he) is”, then the conjunction ‘and’ Basileous Basileon (King of Kings)… Reading as Lord of Lords he is, and King of Kings. (Careful where we put the comma, we don’t want to follow the tradition of placing it to suit ones theology… like after Shemeron, Today !)

So, 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 King of Kings, Nebuchadnezzar is not the same entity as the King of Kings, Jesus.

 

[hopesprings]

Hi Hopesprings

Thank you for your input. Sorry that I'm days behind, I don't get a lot of spare time...

I think that in Revelation 19:6 the conjunction ‘and’ separates the titles. It’s not just one title. Furthermore, to emphasise that fact the same titles are given to Jesus in Revelation 17:14 ...In Koine Greek it reads: Kyrios Kurion, (Lord of Lords)…then the verb estin “(he) is”, then the conjunction ‘and’ Basileous Basileon (King of Kings)… Reading as Lord of Lords he is, and King of Kings. (Careful where we put the comma, we don’t want to follow the tradition of placing it to suit ones theology… like after Shemeron, Today !)

So, 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 King of Kings, Nebuchadnezzar is not the same entity as the King of Kings, Jesus.

Like I said...dissecting God's title. It's funny to me that you would say we need to be careful of where the comma is placed in Luke 23:43 (even though we weren't talking about that), yet shouldn't the 'other side' heed the same warning? In regard to the title king of kings and lord of lords....you can 'think' that the AND in the middle of title seperates it...I think that you are wrong. I don't read Greek, obviously you do and are privy to the ancient texts..so I'll have to take your word on that part of your post. Still doesn't change anything...imo...God is still called King of kings and Lord of Lords and so is Jesus...no one else...just Jesus..same with Mighty God. so...yah....

 

[ra88itt]

FeedM3, thank you for your honesty and humility in your response. I've been caught up in these arguements before and found it extremely frustrating to see that although I was taking into consideration the points being raised ...that my own points were being ignored. It was less a discussion and more of a mind game played by unskilled, brainwashed hitmen for the "one true religion". I believe that Ra88it and T.J are from the same hall and have come here to this site to try and convert the masses and in some twisted way see any opposition to their position as being spiritually rewarding....when in truth and in the Truth scripture states if you deny Christ then He will deny you...if my post wash harsh please take no offense. I just hate to see so many entangled in the art of nothingness with the artists of nothing.

“Nothing from nothing ,means nothing”…..Eddie Murphy

The Machine

Hi TheMachine

Usually, when the paranoia kicks in, the accusation is that I am the other JW poster...I know that Christians want two to three persons to be one, but no, TJ12 and I are not one and the same, neither are we from the same congregation, I don't even have a congregation as I'm no longer a JW.

The giveaway is in the flag avatars, I'm from the UK with a Union Jack flying and TJ12 is from the U.S. of A with the stars and stripes flying, if the Joly Roger was flying I might be some where in between. Whilst TJ12 et al are tucked up in bed I might be awake 3000 miles away.

I scan forums to learn various Christian theologies, and there is no better way than to talk direct with those ones with their various belief systems. Contrary to what you say, I have taken note of the very good arguments from both sides.

 

[ra88itt]

Hi Hopesprings

Like I said...dissecting God's title. It's funny to me that you would say we need to be careful of where the comma is placed in Luke 23:43 (even though we weren't talking about that), yet shouldn't the 'other side' heed the same warning? In regard to the title king of kings and lord of lords....you can 'think' that the AND in the middle of title seperates it...I think that you are wrong. I don't read Greek, obviously you do and are privy to the ancient texts..so I'll have to take your word on that part of your post. Still doesn't change anything...imo...God is still called King of kings and Lord of Lords and so is Jesus...no one else...just Jesus..same with Mighty God. so...yah....

I don't read Koine Greek, just understand it... I suppose 'dissecting' is a more appropriate word. We can both agree on that ?... It tends to say that dissects 'parts' the one title in your view, and in my view the dissection is natural due to the fact that there are two titles " King of Kings........... and Lord of Lords"... Similar to describing two aspects: "The Power and the Glory." "The man is good and bad ". Or, Satan is evil and the angel of light. Two descriptions.

With regards to the placing of the comma, I wouldn't be joking about it's position if there was no ancient textual support.

 

[GreenNnice]

If Christ is but an angel, do angels worship angels? Does God command this sort of worship of His angels?

Nice.
Sharp, cutting, like a two-edged sword, only 'sharper.'


TeeJayTwelve, what kind of fallcy are you expressing when Paul's words are called 'inspiration' by you?

Isn't Jesus called the Son Of God. You say Scripture never states God's Son. But, in grammar rules if something is like, the vomit of the dog, it would be 'the dog's vomit.'

Just saying, that is an example , and, not juding you here nor anywhere in my posts, I hope and pray, just wanting the understanding that just because something is never phrased exactly how you want it said does not mean it says exactly what you don't want it to say (to fit your doctrine).

God's Word is God's Word is God's Word, and, it, indeed, is the Word of God.

Jesus is The Truth is He not, no? The Word of God is called what? The Truth
\
Who must we come by in order to enter Heaven? The Way. The Life. And......The Truth. Quite the title and power this non one true God has, eh, tjay12 ?
___________
What of Jesus was NOT created at the foundation of the world, of Scripture wrong? forgive me, again, not judging, but I can't be led (Can I, Lord?) to go through all zillion demonstrably incorrect, twisted, misunderstood Scripture by you posted, TeeJaytwelve ??

Through faith in Him, I pray, , I (oh, yes, others on here too, ) will show your true understanding of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit is baptized in the WRONG doctrine.


But, wasn't Jesus around at the foundation of the world . Did he therefore, since not Deity, I won't put his references wtih a cap, but since he was born 'in the beginning,' (where does Scripture state this??? Was Jesus born and his Father, God, never told us?? Weird) but never mentioned throughout Scripture of Old Testament but as a coming King to save the world, per Isaiah, a few other books mention the Saviour coming too, don't they?

But, yeah, why is Jesus never mentioned in the beginning of time by God, yet he (Jesus) is around, Scripture states before God did the beginning of creation??? Did Jesus sit at the left hand of God until he was sent by Holy Spriit seed of God to Earth to be birthed from a person who was virgin??
Wait! How does one give birth who is a virgin, green? Good question, grasshopper, the word 'miracle' comes to mind
It's a miraculous amount of Love others have shown you, TJonetwo, I commend my fellow Christ peeps for keeping the Love of God on the tablets of their hearts as they discuss this fallacy of great believe with you of JW doctrine, tjayonetwo.

I pray too you come to KNOW 'the one true God' who is Jesus, who is the Holy Spirit, who have ALL been around since before time began. Hard to understand all that, but, like I told you my last post, your thought of understanding can be held in suspended animation by God until He sees fit for you to see the Truth. YOU must simpl y have faith that your eyes can be opened to this Truth, agian, NOT judging, just saying, YOU must become KNOWN to God and your posts here DO reek with false doctrine of not understanding He who sent Jesus was God Himself.

 

[TJ12]

Hello GreenNnice,

You can just call me TJ, spelled just like that please. (1 Peter 3:15)

Isn't Jesus called the Son Of God. You say Scripture never states God's Son. But, in grammar rules if something is like, the vomit of the dog, it would be 'the dog's vomit.'

You're misstating my position. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and God's Son; of course those terms are interchangeable. What scripture never calls him is God the Son. Do you see the difference?

What of Jesus was NOT created at the foundation of the world, of Scripture wrong?

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Was Jesus born and his Father, God, never told us?? Weird

Scripture explicitly calls him the firstborn. (Colossians 1:15) We discussed this earlier on in this thread. Furthermore, I've tried several times now to steer the discussion to incorporate Proverbs 8:22-31, a passage that was universally accepted as messianic in the early church and is related to Revelation 3:14. There, it is said of the pre-existent Son, described poetically as "Wisdom":

"The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth." (Proverbs 8:22-26)

Don't mistake the fact that most others here have decided to retire from the discussion for me not having further evidence in favor of my beliefs. For the majority of this discussion I've been on defense, answering questions put to me. It's only recently that I've brought up issues to be answered by those arguing the opposite viewpoint, and it seems there's much less enthusiasm for replying to these posts. One of these issues has to do with the messianic text above.

But, yeah, why is Jesus never mentioned in the beginning of time by God, yet he (Jesus) is around, Scripture states before God did the beginning of creation???

Scripture states that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God." (Rev. 3:14) As it says at Proverbs 8:22, the Son was the first of God's works, he then became a "master workman" at God's side (verse 30), everything being created through, or by means of, him. (Cf. 1 Cor. 8:6) Colossians 1 says the same exact thing, it calls Jesus "the firstborn of creation" and then proceeds to describe how all things were created by God through his agency.

It's a miraculous amount of Love others have shown you, TJonetwo, I commend my fellow Christ peeps for keeping the Love of God on the tablets of their hearts as they discuss this fallacy of great believe with you of JW doctrine, tjayonetwo.

The amount of love and respect you have for me is very apparent in how you address me throughout your post, GreenNnice.

I pray too you come to KNOW 'the one true God' who is Jesus,

Jesus calls his Father "the only true God" and then mentions himself separately. (John 17:1,3) You really don't see how you make his words of no effect?

GreenNnice, here's a serious question for you; if you answer me at all, please don't overlook this. What could Jesus ever possibly say in your view that would prove to you that he isn't God? Do the words exist?


Thank you.

 

[TJ12]

Still doesn't change anything...imo...God is still called King of kings and Lord of Lords and so is Jesus...no one else...just Jesus..same with Mighty God. so...yah....

I know you're done discussing these issues with me, hopesprings, but I'd like to throw the same question out to you that I put to GreenNnice (and even earlier on in this topic): What could Jesus have said that would be accepted by you as definite proof that he's not God?


Thank you.

 

[hopesprings]

I know you're done discussing these issues with me, hopesprings, but I'd like to throw the same question out to you that I put to GreenNnice (and even earlier on in this topic): What could Jesus have said that would be accepted by you as definite proof that he's not God?


Thank you.

Oh TJ...I thought I told you I didn't like silly questions like this? You know...ones that don't have real answers because they don't happen May I ask what your definite proof is that Jesus is not God? And I would like to ask you a question about Jesus' apparent rebuke of the man for using the term 'good teacher'....doesn't Jesus call himself good in John 10?

Thanks TJ
hopesprings