Shiwiii

Blood? Tight pants? A scholarship? A bethel pillow? a copy of Crisis of Conscience? Transcripts from the Australian Royal Commission case study 54?

if one does not, then they should not profess to know.

Your wall of text has discouraged me into responding, partly because you introduce more information that does not directly involve the topic and I feel this is to distract any reader into actually remembering what the topic of discussion is about. there are so many things in your response that need addressing, and to break it down into realistic portions would create so many threads on this board that no one else would be able to post. I think you do this on purpose, meaning write more that necessary, to somehow try and overwhelm whomever it is you are speaking with so they just leave and then you can say "well they couldn't answer" and assume you have it all correct. it is a typical tactic of jws in general, instead of staying on track, add additional material to bury the original question. Anyway....... I am not going to go through your whole post and pull out everything to respond to, but I'll pick a couple. right here you have demonstrated you do not comprehend what the trinity is, nor what trinitarians believe. There is not 3 Gods. I would explain it to you, but I believe that you would play dumb or hold fast to your idea that is already formed. Either way, I suggest you research what the trinity is, as trinitarians believe it. You have already mentioned that you have spoken to James White or someone close to him, that is a great place to start as James DOES know. Isaiah 44, who is recorded as speaking in verses 21-28? Is it not YHWH?

why even mention this again? We are in agreement. Jesus spoke of His body, His physical body. So either Jesus did it or He did not, you are claiming He did not. That is what you have been saying all along. Ok, no problem. I see that you as well as others here do not take this scripture to mean what Jesus said, but instead somehow claim He didn't really mean it by means of another verse that states God did. So then what you are saying is Jesus is a liar. I don't mean to put it so harshly, but it IS what you are saying. If you have this grasp, then why did you make such comments about the Father not being the "triune God" etc. That is interjecting a fourth being from the context of your argument you posted earlier. You are attributing Jonah and Jesus now? Really? Do you not believe that Jesus can/could do things mere mortal could not? Sure He placed limitation upon Himself when taking for form of man (Phil 2:7), but that didn't mean He couldn't use His power for whatever He wanted (John 2:7-11). irregardless, this is just one instance we are discussing, this John 2:19. It does clearly state Jesus said He would raise Himself. You really can't ignore that without some sort of bias. We can gladly choose other verses to discuss and why I believe that Jesus IS God, but we just happen to be on this one. So with that being said, sure lets take all of scripture and continue. Again, Jesus allowed restrictions upon Himself while a man. Of course God cannot die, thus the very reason why Jesus was subjected to become a man, to show us how we are suppose to act/be obedient to God and live according to Gods purpose AND so we can know that death is not the end. Our bodies die/decay, but our spirit belongs to God and will live after our bodies are dust again. God does not cease if Jesus, as a man dies, because our spirit as well as God's Spirit lives on no matter what. Jesus is very much YHWH. If Jesus and only He, had raised himself from the dead, there would be no mention of God or the Holy Spirit, but only by Jesus' own hand and if HE will do this as you said, why bring up the Father or the Holy Spirit if the concept of the Triune God is not at work according to the Trinity? After all, you said the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, so surely all 3 persons would take part in the Resurrection and not Christ Jesus alone. We are not going off in a tangent because regarding the Temple of his Body it is of the passage itself - that is if you take into account the whole passage or one verse. Who said that Jesus and ONLY He raised Himself? No one, and certainly not me. I would be making God a liar by making such a statement based on the very scriptures you brought up. yes No it does not destroy the law, you are correct, but it does destroy the laws that the Jews enacted that were above the law (John 15:25). That was all I was saying. The law stands and will stand just as Jesus said it would (Matt 5:17) I gave you examples of angles/the living creatures of Revelation worshiping Jesus just as God the Father. You're trying to divert what I said to mean honor given to Abraham etc. Not the same and you know it. Jesus said Himself : Luke 24:" 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Jesus spoke this AFTER He was resurrected. So is Jesus a liar? So what you are saying is that when Jesus was here on the Earth, He was only a man? That's fair if that is your belief, however it is not mine. I believe He had a dual nature at that point both God and man. The man had a God and this was to be an example for us. 1 Tim 3:16 says that godliness is a mystery. actually no, those who claim such must provide proof. Until then it is an opinion based on no scriptural support and thus man made. I can see here we are goign to keep going back and forth saying the same things about this verse (John2:19) regardless if it is cross referenced to Acts or not does not diminish the fact that Jesus said it, you agreed He said it, you just don't believe He meant it the way He said it. Lets move on about John 1:3, in particular not the verse John 1:3 but my supporting scriptures that back up that Jesus in fact did create everything and was not created and is God. Who is speaking in Isaiah throughout and being recorded? The Hebrew scriptures state it is YHWH, do you agree?

there is no nullification anywhere, John 1:3 states clearly that Jesus created everything that has been created. This does not make any scripture mistaken, only the interpretation made by some. The confusion is there because those who are so opposed to the idea that God can do anything and be everywhere. There is a common mistake that people have in regards to the trinity, they only have heard a slight idea of it but profess to know it has to be wrong. Michael? hardly. Michael is and was and will for ever be Michael, not Jesus nor the Son of God. This notion of Michael being Jesus is not found within scripture, it is made up by men. If you'd like, start another thread on this topic and I'll discuss it. I have no problem with Jesus sharing in the creation work, or having been used and an instrument. John 1:3 makes it clear that He did create everything that has ever been created. So it fits.

Of course the verse tells us what He meant by the temple, at this time we're not talking about the temple, we're talking about who was going to raise it. The verse says Jesus. This particular point is one of a few that I base my belief on . If Jesus said He would raise Himself, He is either a liar, or it is true. We know that Jesus is not a liar, so it HAS to be true. The verse quotes Jesus saying that He would raise Himself. This, coupled with the other verses that state God would raise Him, leaves a tough position for those who claim that Jesus isn't God because of the direct parallel between who raises Jesus. There is no denying that Jesus said He would raise Himself in 3 days according to John. I think you may have an idea of what the trinity is, but lack understanding of how it works. By saying Jesus raised Himself it does not reject the idea that the Father raised Him, nor the Holy Spirit. There are verses which we have quoted each other in this thread that testify to all three being attributed to raising Jesus. Since the scriptures cannot be contradictory then there has to be an explanation and all of those verses have to be true. and yet, many many scriptures are quoting the OT about YHWH and attributes those same qualities or actions to Jesus. so what you are saying is research until I come to your conclusion? like I said, if I am wrong for taking God's word directly as it is clear to me, so be it. To me it most certainly does, by means of Jesus saying He Himself would raise Himself. You do have to admit that this IS what Jesus said He would do. We can go off on another tanget about the temple and His body, but we'll leave that for a different thread. You are making it waaay more difficult then necessary. It reminds me of how the Jews back in that time had rules upon rules that they developed based on their extensive knowledge of the Law. When Jesus came, He made it very simple and said so in Matt 22:36-40. This destroyed the whole list of laws the jews had created. I feel that you are using the duality of scripture (where a verse has more than one meaning and application) to dismiss what is being said. To me it is crystal clear that Jesus created everything that has ever been created. That is what John 1:3 says. It looks as though we are never going to get around this because it makes it too hard for you to accept what is exactly written, and this is because it does not fit your view point. I get it. Instead it has to be assumed that John meant something else because by John stating that Jesus created all things it makes Him God, and we just can't have that. Nevermind that Jesus is to be worshiped and Honored just as the Father (Revelation 4:9-11 and 5:11-14). I agree, but don't even get started on "His body", because jws do not believe He was resurrected in the same body. Thus making Jesus a liar. I NEVER said it was the same event. Because that is what Jesus said HE would do. yes I am sure, because that is what John 2:19 says.

By all means please show me a scripture that corrects my thinking and makes John 1:3 clear as crystal. 1 Cor 8:6 does not solve the perceived contradiction. Do you at least agree that John 1:3 says that Jesus created everything that was created and without Him nothing was created?

I cannot argue that these clearly state God raised Jesus. It is my personal belief that Jesus is YHWH with my support from scripture. I thank you for always providing scripture to support your position as well Space. The only thing I can do is accept also that John 2:19 states Jesus did it. You can dismiss this account in John 2 if you'd like with other scriptures, but the fact of the matter is I cannot and to me scripture cannot contradict itself, so there HAS to be some way to reconcile these within what is written. So far nothing in scripture shows me otherwise. If I die and God says to me "you dummy, that's not what it meant" well, then I can only ask for forgiveness for taking His word literally where it is clear as crystal to me. To me, the evidence shows me that yes, Jesus IS God as well as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. That is what I will be judged on when it comes time I guess.

irregardless, What John 1:3 says is that Jesus created everything that was created. It does not say everything after He Himself was created. yes they did, as mentioned to Billy. They thought of the temple THEY built. It correlates just as I said, It is another instance of the Holy Spirit. agreed well John 2:19 does. It clearly states who will raise the "temple of His body", Himself.

again, you mention created and there is no scriptural support for Jesus being created. No scripture says that AFTER Jesus was created, THEN He created everything else.

what was symbolic was "His body" and this is also confirmed by Scripture. John 2:21and 22 attest to this. Not symbolic as to who was going to do it. This is proven by the answer by the Jews.

absolutely! What did happen? Jesus said He would raise Himself and that is what happened. He was raised. Here in John 2:19 He says He would do it. I agree that Jesus was speaking of His body as the temple. It was exactly this, His body, that He said He would raise. It was done just as He said it would be. Did this confuse the Jews? Kind of, because they missed the part that He was talking about His body/Temple. They thought the actual temple that THEY build.

Right, Jesus said He would raise Himself up. Which He did. So here Jesus raised Himself. Yes, of course the Jews didn't like it, because He claimed something that only God could claim. Right, so the Spirit of God, also called the Holy Spirit, raised Jesus from the dead. Yes it does reference back to Acts 2:24. Another instance of this is in Acts as well, Acts 13:2

sure, but translating words from one language to another just to translate it again to another, is losing its meaning. The problem I have with this thinking is that it is not backup by scripture and contradicts John 1:3. This is interjecting ideas not found within our topic of conversation. I agree, lets stick to scripture. What does John 1:3 say? How can this be reconciled to the rest of scripture in regards to creation?

I can agree here, but nothing says Jesus was created. Firstborn, yes, but the meaning of firstborn in context is not synonymous with created.

John 1:3 still says that not one thing that was created was created without Jesus. I'm not even talking about the trinity, I am talking about how John 1:3 says that nothing was created without Jesus. How is that so?

I agree that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24). Who did it, or claimed to do it, according to these scriptures: John 2:19 ? Romans 8:11 ?

does this not contradict John 1:3? how do YOU reconcile the two scriptures?

please demonstrate where I have nullified anything. Is it here where I quoted myself? Great, so what part of John 1:3 says Jesus created Himself? Or that Jesus was created? I think John 1:3 clearly states that not one thing that was created was created without Jesus. so in this part of your post, let me see if I follow you, are you saying that Jesus being born here on Earth is the part where firstborn comes in? obviously Jesus was not the first person born here on Earth, but He is the firstborn of God. This singles Him out from among other's by different means then physical birth, it must have more meaning. Correct? Lets look at Issac, why was he called "firstborn"? He wasn't the first child born to Abraham. See here I have not a problem, per se, but a question. Why are you using a lexicon of the Septuagint when dealing with the New Testament? The Septuagint is the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, Old Testament to Greek. Either way, when you read the lexicon for the Septuagint you ARE getting the meanings of the Greek words that best represent the Hebrew meaning and then converting it into English(or whatever language). To convey the meaning from Hebrew to Greek is not an easy task, but to then convert it into English it compounds the loss of meaning and breaks it down to what "best fits". Nothing wrong with that, but you must keep that in mind if you are going to use this as your support. And by the way, I noticed you didn't use any scripture to support your position. John 1:3 doesn't count since it is our subject. So if scripture cannot contradict itself, explain to me using scripture how John 1:3 doesn't say that Jesus created everything that was created and without Him nothing was created.

It is interpreted by means of scripture. First we have to agree that scripture does not contradict itself. agreed? If that is your belief as well, then great we are on the same page. If John 1:3 states that not a single thing came into existence without Jesus, what does that mean to you? Does it mean that Jesus created Himself? Before you jump to your answer, let me just say that I believe that Jesus was begotten. This is evident by scripture. What does that even mean? Begotten? To keep this as simple as we can, lets stick with the book of John for a minute. John 1:14 mentions that Jesus is begotten , the only begotten from the Father. The word in Greek is: G3439 μονογενής monogenēs mon-og-en-ace From G3441 and G1096 ; only {born} that {is} sole: - only ({begotten} child). Which is derived from G3441 and G1096 which are: G3441 μόνος monos mon'-os Probably from G3306 ; {remaining} that {is} sole or single ; by implication mere: - {alone} {only} by themselves. and G1096 γίνομαι ginomai ghin'-om-ahee A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be ( gen {-erate}) that {is} (reflexively) to become ( come into {being }) used with great latitude ({literally} {figuratively} {intensively} etc.): - arise be {assembled} be ({come} {-fall} -have {self}) be brought (to {pass}) (be) come (to {pass}) {continue} be {divided} be {done} {draw} be {ended} {fall} be {finished} {follow} be {found} be {fulfilled} + God {forbid} {grow} {happen} {have} be {kept} be {made} be {married} be ordained to {be} {partake} {pass} be {performed} be {published} {require} {seem} be {showed} X soon as it {was} {sound} be {taken} be {turned} {use} {wax} {will} {would} be wrought. As we can see here is means single,only,sole of what? to become, be brought to, to cause to be. Sounds very much like created, I agree. However, within context of John 1:3, it would mean that Jesus created Himself. The writers could have also used a different word in John 1:14 instead of begotten and that would be : G2936 κτίζω ktizō ktid'-zo Probably akin to G2932 (through the idea of the proprietorship of the manufacturer ); to {fabricate} that {is} found ( form originally): - {create} {Creator} make. Clearly this kitzo has the meaning of created and it is used throughout the New Testament when read in context. But that wasn't the word used to describe Jesus. The idea of begotten is only found in the New Testament 9 times with 6 of those attributed to Jesus. The other 3 are speaking of a single child of a father or mother. This is true, but if you look at how it is used towards Jesus vs how it is used towards the son or daughter the other three times, you see a vast difference of importance within context. Did Jesus come from the Father? yes. Is Jesus unlike ANY other? yes Was Jesus created? no. I agree with this statement. I have provided scripture and definitions from Strong's to support my belief. I haven't nullified any scripture nor ignored any. please demonstrate from your perspective, with Scripture and we can go from there.

To add to my last post : G4413 πρῶτος prōtos pro'-tos Contracted superlative of G4253 ; foremost (in {time} {place} order or importance): - {before} {beginning} {best} chief ({-est}) first (of {all}) former. G5088 τίκτω tiktō tik'-to A strengthened from of a primary word τέκω tekō (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to produce (from {seed} as a {mother} a {plant} the {earth} {etc.}) literal or figurative: - {bear} be {born} bring {forth} be {delivered} be in travail.

it all depends on your interpretation of "firstborn" or rather G4416 πρωτοτόκος prōtotokos pro-tot-ok'-os From G4413 and the alternate of G5088 ; first born (usually as {noun} literally or figuratively): - firstbegotten (-born). But if we let scripture speak for itself, what does John 1:3 say? Does it say that Jesus made everything that has ever been made and nothing that has ever been made was made without Him having made it? I believe it does. There is no separation from verse 1 through 3 on who is the subject, the subject is Jesus. So with that being said, for Jesus to have been created, He would have to create Himself.

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

oh yes, I totally understand this point. To assimilate the jw elders to police, while a very accurate analogy, is going a bit far. Without going into the qualifications of these "police elders", they aren't even versed in the ways they are supposed to be, ie CSA. They are merely told to call someone else. I don't even buy the whole "well they are imperfect people", that is a complete cop out and a perfect excuse for the blunders they've committed. If they are not qualified, then they're not anything more than advisers. Advice is great if it is accepted and put into practice, but in reality that's all they are is advisers. again spiritual cops? hardly. In the end we, individuals, are held accountable for what we have done, not a group of uneducated men dictating the "standards" of an organization. While on this topic of standards, Can anyone show me in the Bible where beards are looked down upon? how about higher education? birthdays? and the list goes on. Its not found anywhere, its man made. isn't this where parents and the Bible come in? It is. Integrity is learned by following the morals instilled in you from either your dedication to the Bible/God, your parents (family), friends, observation, etc. Even then, some choose to disregard those morals and thus do not have it. that is wishful thinking. We already know people are flawed. Sure we all make mistakes, get speeding tickets, lie, cheat, steal, etc. Its our human nature, but to give authority to a group of men who are no more trained than I is absurd. To be held accountable and receive discipline in the magnitude that is dished out, merely based on standards imposed by men, is just plain foolishness. I guess that may also be why the gb doesn't want people to go and receive higher education, to learn to think for themselves. I apologize if I may offend anyone with my statements here, but it is "the truth".

Ok, maybe my opinion isn't needed here but I am sure to give it anyway. What happened to individual morals? If two people are adults, and I mean mature enough to understand the dangers of being alone together out of public view after a wonderful evening, etc. , why must other adults....err....grown men stick their noses in other people's business? Sure there can be some accountability held by informing a friend or family member of the evening plans or whatever, but to have an adult principal to oversee your dance party/movie night/dinner date is actually pathetic and demonstrates a lack of self control and a willingness to let others dictate YOUR life. This whole idea that elders have some sort of authority over how you live your life is expressing that jws as a whole cannot make their own decisions and must sneak and hide like high school kids. If you have no personal boundaries, then you are going to do what you are going to do, its just like integrity, you have it or your don't. I just don't get it.