Shiwiii

Is this resurrection taking place during the 1000 year reign as this book implies?

Then why is it that there is a publisher card with your name on it? If it is of free will, then there would be no need to record who did what and when. Also, if you fail to turn in this time card, do you not get counseled? Why would you get counseled? Why would you be told you are not doing enough for Jehovah? Thus making him sad. No one is putting a gun to your head , I agree, but through coercion you are being forced. If it really is a matter of take it or leave it, then you wouldn't be subjected to reprove if you didn't. The account in the Bible you use to go door to door, is Acts 5:42 yes?

Gregorio, I watched your link and appreciate your contribution to this topic. Here are a few things I have a problem with in Mr. Barron's video. First point is that he seems to be implying that the Jews had used the term God rather frequently and thus making the meaning of less importance unless it is considered of YHWH. While on the surface this may sound acceptable, however Jews today and back then reserve God in the utmost importance. There is no evidence to support that the Jews would equate any other gods on par with God, its just not there. Furthermore, the suggestion that the writers of the NT were Jews and wrote from within a Jewish mind frame is unsupported and is actually the opposite of what they actually wrote. The writers of the NT positioned themselves in opposition to the Jews, not aligned. Mr. Barron has a short article this very subject on his website, particularly John 5:18&19, and on it he has this to say: " Nevertheless, I must address one own point therein, namely, that in 5:19 Jesus provided an answer to those seeking to kill him. Quite simply, Jesus “answered” the Jews not because he wasn’t breaking the Sabbath or making himself equal to God. If this was their understanding they were entirely correct, but they erred in failing to understand he was rightly sanctioned for both and in subjection to God through it all. " -http://www.scripturaltruths.com/

But all that is God, is in Jesus. You admitted that, but you still want to say that He is not. ok. Do you then think that Jesus has all that is God and then some more of something that is Himself too? Meaning Jesus has more whatever in Him than God does? You didn't, but it was the point I was trying to make. Jesus broke the Pharisees laws about the Sabbath, that is what John wrote about. Jesus is without sin. It is not an accusation, it is fact, Jesus broke the Pharisees laws, not God's. actually it is on you, because it is referenced in both your Bible and mine, I just pointed it out. You said that there is no way that John would attribute Lev 24:16 to this, however both of our Bibles do. see below exactly, and that is what the Jewish leaders used to kill Jesus. John just wrote it, not agreed with it. yup, its good now. What categories are there then? You laid out three, I showed you how Jesus could not fit in two. What more is there? No Zeus is not a legitimate god. Neither is Moses, nor Kings, nor anyone according to Isiah 43. God said that there was not one before nor after Him. So if you believe that at John 1:1 Jesus is a god, then what kind of god is He? There really is only two kinds, true and false. True God is YHWH, false is satan, false is Moses, false is the rest. This all hinges on Isiah 43, there is no God other than YHWH. So if you believe that Jesus is a god, and if you believe He is not YHWH, then He is not true god, thus making Him on par with Moses/kings and satan and not fitting into Isiah 43.

You don't talk to Him now (by means of prayer), so why do you think you would expect to talk to Him then?

Was Jesus claiming to be another son of God or THE Son of God? There is a difference, even if you want to dismiss it. Yes, it does......ALL that is God dwells within Jesus. The fullness of deity. The word used is pan or pas (G3956) and its meaning is all or whole, meaning completeness when used in conjunction with pleroma (G4138). So are you telling me that God required men to not even spit on the ground on the Sabbath because that would be considered plowing, thus "work" ? Really? You do not see a distinction between God's Sabbath and that of the Jewish leaders? That was the whole point of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, to show the Jews the true meaning of it. Not some over the top addition of man's rules upon Gods declaration of rest. Take that up with your Bible writers, I did not put that reference in your Bible, they did. You tell me why. I just pointed it out to you and can see why they did. There is a reason why that is referenced in 99% of Bibles out there at John 19:7. Your argument is not with me on this one. Jesus broke the rules of the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath, He did not break the Sabbath. Jesus told them it is alright to do good on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12). I found out why the formatting is messed up. Once you are done with your post, highlight all of it and select the drop down for size and reduce it to 14 or less. Now let us get back to the point of this discussion. Do you believe Jesus is a legitimate God or not?

Where did you show this? and from what scripture? Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. What does that mean to you? Does it mean that there is something of God that did not dwell in Jesus? please explain. Jesus' claim of being THE Son of God, means He has the same nature, is of the same substance. You cannot get a zebra from a duck, they are different in nature. Jesus DID break the Jews Sabbath, but He did not break God's Sabbath. Big difference, but one that helps us see clearly the mind of the Jewish leaders. Each time Jesus said that He was the Son of God to the Jewish leaders/Pharisees and they got angry. Why? You may think it was a false anger to trump op a charge against Him, but you yourself agreed that they could not find any false testimony. So while they might have wanted Jesus gone, they couldn't do it with false testimony or false witnesses, so it had to be true testimony. Jesus statement was true and according to Jewish law, not God's law, this would be considered blasphemy. Does your Bible reference Leviticus 24:16 from John 19:7? Consider why it does. What reason, just because of the word blasphemy? nope, or it would be referenced most other places. I don't think you are grasping the meaning of what this is saying. Why would the whole nation perish? Because they would lose their position, as in verse 48: If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” Like I just showed above, they could not kill Jesus on false testimony or false witnesses, it had to be true. Also, notice how the account is written in John 5:18. This is all written by John, he is not recording a statement by anyone when he wrote this. He was recording the facts, inspired too I might add. a) According to the Jewish law it is, because it is claiming the same nature as God. That is why it is blasphemous. Lev 24:16 b) This is not even a point actually. Its like saying Jesus didn't speak English so the Bible I use is wrong. I never said Jesus was the Father, but Scripture says that Jesus has the fullness of deity (all that makes God God) in Himself. If you look in the mirror who's image do you see? If Jesus is the exact image of God, then Jesus is what God looks like. Like I said what other representative has the qualities that Jesus has? None, so He does not fit into that category of your three and He doesn't fit into the false god category either.

This statement, I am in complete agreement with. They/we are to honor the Son just as we honor the Father. There is no separation or degree of honor given to one over the other.

Yes, the formatting was a little bit messed up. I'll just cut and paste to answer you. -God is not the fruit of David’s loins – that is ridiculous. The prophecy in 2 Sam 7 is about a human son. Jehovah (YHWH) says “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”. So are you saying that Jesus was only human? Colossians 2:9 says otherwise. Also look at Jesus explanation to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:42-46 on this very subject. -Well, his opposers claimed it was what he said, not how he said it, so your premise is false. According to scripture (and your own admission) “Son of God” does not mean “God”. As you pointed out, the Jews were sons of God. Angels are probably called sons of God in Job, Adam was son of God – in no case does “son of God” mean “God Himself”. You have no scriptural basis for your claim. So my understanding of the term “Son of God” comes from scripture, Why would God use the phrase towards humans, if it is a term that means God Himself? It IS how He said it. He claimed to be THE Son of God, meaning to come directly from God and not a son of God as the Jews were. This would be His claim to be of the same nature as God, the form of a cat begets a cat, the form of a dog begets a dog, the form of God begets God. You do not get a camel from a hippo. Just as you are human, so too were your parents. Jesus was begotten of God, and thus the same form/substance/nature, God. Does that make Him the Father? Nope. My scriptural support comes from many places and we can get into each one if you'd like, but I have given you Matthew 26 and Jesus affirms that He is THE Son of God, THE Christ. -The high priest claims this is blasphemy. Why do you believe this when in the same passage we are told: John 11:49,50 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him? They wanted false testimony in order to get Jesus killed. Why do you build your case on the evidence of those who opposed Jesus and were prepared to lie to get him killed. You have to read the accusations of the Jewish leaders in the light of the plot to kill him. Matt 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, Matt 12:14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him. John 7:25,26 Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ? (not that this is God!). Keep reading in your quote of Matthew 26, in verse 60 specifically. It says they did not find this false testimony. They did not find anything to prove their want. Their deeds were being done for what? So they would not lose their place among society (John 11:47&48). It was only at verse 63-66 of Matthew 26 did they find anything that could stick, it was Jesus claim to be of the same nature of God, being THE Son of God. Matthew 12:14 only speaks that the Pharisees were getting nervous and started to think about what they could do to stop Jesus. It doesn't say they had made up any lies or false testimony. Your John 7 reference does nothing but confirm that Jesus is the Christ, you have added what you want it to say with "(not that this is God!)." This is an argument from silence. -If you reread my post you will see that at John 5 Jesus said “My Father” – the Jews claimed he said “My own Father” – they put their spin to misrepresent what he said. As I pointed out, Jesus used the term “My Father” dozens of times with no adverse reaction. There is nothing blasphemous about calling God “My Father” – it was a trumped up charge. I understand what you are saying, but I've already discussed this above. The fact that Jesus said "My Father" is true, but when did He say this to the Scribes and Pharisees and they not get angry? He said this to the crowds and to the disciples, but the only times He said this to the Pharisees and Jewish leaders they got angry and wanted to kill Him. So it wasn't like the Pharisees and Jewish leaders heard this and dismissed it as you claim, but rather regular people and the disciples heard it most. -Again, I believe I have clearly explained the three uses of the term god in scripture. It can be used a) Of the true God, Jehovah (YHWH), b) Of false gods Of representatives of the true God (like Psalm 82, John 1:1, Moses) I have real problems with formatting this post - so please excuse if disjointed. D. A representative does not have the fullness of deity, nor is the representative an exact image of God. (Colossians 2:9 & Colossians 1:15) So where does Jesus fit in your three? What other representative in the Bible have these qualities?

Dang it, here I thought I was getting a complement. (Web bot post). But that does not address the equality of the honor given in the verse. It's not a matter of why, but rather what.

Why thank you for the complement. However, my point still stands that you cannot have an opinion outside of the watchtower. "We all must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive whether they seem strategic from a human standpoint or not''. So you have to accept and obey.

Lol, and that is the sole reason why I can not understand jehovahs witnesses. They are not free to have an opinion other than the wt, lest they be cast out of the club.

Moses is credited with the writing of Genesis by both the Jews as well as Christians. What information do you have that I can review that credits others with this writing.

You do realize that Moses wrote Genesis, not Abraham, right? This was done under God's inspiration right?

I agree with the first part, however scripture never says not a divine being. Your quote from 2 Samuel says, He will be a descendant of them, come from their people. You are assuming how Jesus used the term. Like I said, and it seems you have discarded, is that the Jews themselves believed they were sons of God. So this is not something new. The difference isn't what Jesus said, but how He said it. Jesus was a Jew, so He would be considered a son of God just as the Jews were. That isn't what Jesus said, He said He was the Son of God. Look over at John 19:7, the Jews pointed out that they had a law, and by this law they were to kill Jesus. What was this law? Leviticus 24:16 is what is referenced in most Bibles at John 19:7. This is talking about blaspheming the name of Yahweh. How did Jesus blaspheme the name of Yahweh? The Jews spelled it out in the accounts in John, because He said He was the Son of God, thus making Himself of the same nature, God. a) yes, I agree b) see above a&b) yes, look also at John 19:7 and Matt 26:63-66, specifically verse 65. Where is the misquote what verse? I mean right there in Matthew 26 Jesus affirmed their accusations. What are the three uses of god then? Please categorize The Father, Jesus, Satan, Moses and kings. Maybe this will help me understand your point of view better and allow me to ask better questions.

What did God tell Moses at Exodus 6:2&3? So what we have is a contradiction, or so it seems. However, our belief in the Bible tells us that there cannot be a contradiction. Moses wrote Genesis, Moses knew Gods name, Moses also wrote most of Exodus. Would Moses put Gods name where it should be, according to inspiration? I'm sure he would.

I don't know, we are only told that Abraham, Issac and Jacob did not. It was Moses who was told, and Moses wrote Genesis.

Thank you, I was looking public library.

Interesting that there is not a single copy available in any public library in Southern California. Others in the series, but not the ones by David Aune.

Were the Jews not called sons of God? The book of Deuteronomy tells us that the people of Israel were the sons of God. (14:1 and 32:8 specifically). Why would they make such a fuss over another Jews saying what they already believed? In John 5 there is another description of the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, over basically the same thing. John records why, with the same statement of calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. The Jews were called sons of God so why would they get upset about another Jews saying it? Because it wasn't the same thing. Jesus was saying that God is His direct Father, and this is what both passages tie together, and why the Jews wanted Him dead. It would be blasphemy for a Jews to claim this, but not so to claim to be a son of God. It was not an argument, it was a statement by the Jews. You never addressed the question with Satan that I brought up, why?

no, that is quite alright, thank you though. I will seek it out at the library. I looked for an online link as well and came up empty. I will research and get back to you on any findings I come up with.

I'm saying that Moses was not a god, not in the sense of Isiah 43:10. Is Satan a god? That is the question. I didn't say he was a representative of God. I do agree that in Psalm 82 the term "gods" is used of men, and it also shows their inability to be god as described to us by Isiah 43:10. Absolutely Jesus used this to show them that they themselves (men) were called gods, however the argument was not whether or not Jesus was a god like they had been called, but rather that it was not blasphemy when He said He was Gods Son. The statement of being God's Son, does invoke the thought within the Jews that He was making himself out to be God. This is demonstrated by the action they were going to carry out. Jesus wasn't trying to get them on a technicality, but instead was using scripture to support His claim. Others had been called "sons of God", all of Israel for that matter, but that wasn't the same or they wouldn't have wanted to stone Jesus. They would have accepted it just on the fact that Jesus was a Jews also, so His claim would be along the lines of their own. So in the refutation at John 10, Jesus was not claiming to be a man just as all the rest of the Israelite's who had been called gods, but rather to prove His statement true. Jesus being directly from the Father, this was something they could not handle because it would make Jesus God as well. So then what kind of god is Jesus in John 1:1? A god like Moses? Is He on par with Satan as far as gods go?

Can you provide a link so that I may research this as well please?

I would call Moses a false god, a representative none the less, but not a god as described in Isaiah 43:10. would you say the same of Satan? Neither true or false? just a god like Moses?

The clarity of equality is in what every creature in heaven and on earth say in verse 13 : "to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" This here is the subject of the statement, both the Lamb and the one who sits on the Throne. The compound predicate is the "blessing and honor and glory and might" The predicate is describing the subject, there is no differentiation between the Lamb and Him who sits, they both are the subject equally. If this were not the case, then we would have separate lists, one for each the Lamb and Him who sits. Equality of these respects (honor, glory,might and blessing) is demonstrated by the complex subject, but it uses singular verbs. I understand that this is English grammar , however the same applies in this instance in the Greek grammar.