Jesus.defender

On 7/7/2018 at 5:28 PM, ShariKind said:

Sorry, it was an example of free thought without a concerted and educated effort for basis of a thought.

Ok, thank you.

God bless.

1 minute ago, Brother Rando said:

Let's plug in your pagan doctrine.  You claim Jesus is God... so let's go with it....

Who said, "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36)

Now you claim Jesus is Jehovah...so how do you get the opposite teaching from the Bible?   How is it that God claimed this???  You're the Claiming Jesus is omnipotence....   Aren't you the one in a CULT that burns Bibles and Claims God burn people alive forever and ever?  How is it that you Claim that Jesus is God but Never say Jesus burns people alive forever and ever??

Is it because you are being a religious hypocrite like you forefathers that lied about Jesus Christ being God???  That false charge is a lie, don't you know anything Sherlock??

 

 

I have addressed those points again and again with you, my friend.

WHEN did He say that? whilst He was on earth? yes.

Funny how JW's are too scared ( or embarrassed? ) to address THEIR failed prophecies.

ie:

1889- In subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God has already begun...And that the "battle of the great day of God almighty [revelation 16:14], which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of the earth's present rulership, is already commenced. [The 1915 edition of this book changed "A.D. 1914" to "A.D. 1915."] *from the book "The Time is at Hand; 1889

"Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." Zion's Watch Tower 1894 Jul 15 p.226
 

July 15th 1894- We see no reason for changing the futures- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.
 

1899 "...the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced," (The Time Is at Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).

1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection," (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89).

1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914," (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262).
1923 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge," (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).
 

1904- The stress of the great time of trouble will be on us soon, somewhere between 1910 and 1912- culminating in the end of the "Times of the Gentiles," October 1914. *from the book "The New Creation" 1904
 

On 7/8/2018 at 1:20 PM, ShariKind said:

I haven't been here that long to determine Jesus.defender's pattern, but since he made the statement as such: that Jesus was not on the earth in bodily form before  the New Testament was written, I just wanted to know if he thinks he was on earth in any form in Old Testament times. (Body or not, because there ARE supposed to be three of them, maybe not in form, shape or size, I still would like Jesus.defender to explain his statement, if he can.)

He was not on earth as per the incarnation.

He did appear as Jehovah God in the ot.

Contrary to popular believe of a couple of people here, i am not a bad person.

i have chosen to ignore "space merchant" for a number of reasons. none of those reasons is that i cannot address what he presents. But, if anyone wants to think that, that's fine, i don't care what people think.

I know what i believe and i know WHY i believe it.

I like to try to stick to one topic or subject or scripture at a time usually.

If anyone tries to throw out red herrings or strawman arguments, i get annoyed. 

I have started several posts on single, specific topics related to the "trinity".

If you want to discuss something with me, how about start a new topic and let me know?

Appearances of Jehovah in the Old Testament as the Son of God 

Jn 6:46

1. To Adam in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3:8. ‘They heard the voice of the LORD God walking in…’

2. To the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11:5,7. ‘The LORD came down to see the city and the tower..’

3. To Abram. Genesis 12:7.‘The LORD appeared unto Abram & said, Unto thy seed will I give this land’

4. To Abram to make a covenant with him. Genesis 15:17. ‘a smoking furnace & a burning lamp passed’

5. To Hagar as the Angel of Jehovah. Genesis 16:7,9,10,11,13

6. To Abraham and Sarah to announce the conception of Isaac. Genesis 17:1

7. To Abraham to discuss the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 18:1,2,21,33 and 19:24.

8. To Sarah to conceive Isaac. Genesis 21:1-4. ‘The LORD visited Sarah as he had said…’

9. To Hagar and Ishmael when cast out by Sarah in the desert. Genesis 21:9-21,17.

10. To Abraham when sacrificing Isaac. Genesis 22:10-18,11,15,16.

11. To Abraham’s servant getting a wife for Isaac at Haran. Genesis 24:40

12. To Isaac forbidding him going to Egypt. Genesis 26:1-6.

13. To Isaac at Beersheba after digging wells. Genesis 26:24.

14. To Jacob at the top of a ladder from earth to heaven. Genesis 28:13

15. To wrestle with Jacob and change his name to Israel. Genesis 32:24-30.

16. To Jacob to change his name to Israel. Genesis 35:9.
Jacob recounts to Joseph how God Almighty appeared to him at Luz (Gen 35:6) to bless him. (Gen 48:3)

17. To Moses at the burning bush as the angel of Jehovah, as Jehovah God, to go to Pharaoh (Ex. 3:1-18)

18. To Moses to give him signs to prove to Israel that God has appeared to him. (Exodus 4:1-5)

19. To kill Moses in the inn, because Moses neglected to circumcise his son. (Exodus 4:24-26).

20. Recounted to Moses how He appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty. (Ex. 6:3)

21. To Israel leaving Egypt in a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night. (Exodus 13:21,22).

22. To Israel at the Red Sea as the angel of God to separate them from Pharaoh’s armies. (Exod 14:19,20)

23. To Pharaoh’s armies pursuing Israel in the Red Sea to take off their chariot wheels. (Exod 14:24,25)

24. To Israel, standing on the rock in Horeb, when Moses smote the rock to give water. (Exodus 17:5-7

25. To Israel at Mount Sinai, to give Moses the ten commandments. (Exodus 19:11,17-20).

26. To Israel in the wilderness as an Angel to lead Israel into Canaan. (Exodus 23:20,21,23).

27. To Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, 70 elders at Mt Sinai to give the 10 Commandments. (24:10,11,17)

28. To Moses in the clift of a rock to see God’s back parts. (‘Thou shalt see my back parts’ Exodus 33:23)

29. To Moses at Mt Sinai to get the 10 Commandments. (‘LORD descended in a cloud & stood’ Ex. 34:5)

30. To Moses & Israel in the tabernacle. ‘the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.’ (Exodus 40:34,38).

31. To Moses from the tabernacle to instruct on offerings. (LORD called unto Moses and spake’ Lev.1:1)

32. To all Israel. (‘the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people. There came a fire out..’ Lev 9:23)

33. To Moses after the death of Nadab and Abihu. (I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. Lev 16:2

34. To Moses in the tabernacle to number Israel. (LORD spake unto Moses..in the tabernacle. Numbers 1:1

35. To Moses in the tabernacle.‘he heard the voice of one speaking to him from off the mercy seat. Num7:89

36. To Israel in the wilderness. So it was alway: the cloud covered it by day, & the appearance of fire by night.9:16

37. To put Moses spirit on 70 elders. ‘The LORD came down in a cloud and spake unto him..’ Num 11:25

38. To rebuke Miriam for criticizing Moses. ‘The LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.’ Numbers 12:5

39. To all the congregation when Korah led a rebellion against Moses. Numbers 16:19,42

40. To Balaam as the angel of the LORD when visiting Balak to curse Israel. Numbers 22:9,20-35.

41. To Moses before His death in the door of the tabernacle. Deut. 31:14,15. ‘the LORD appeared in tab’

42. To Joshua as the Captain of the host of the LORD. Joshua 5:13-15.

43. To Joshua and Israel at Bochim. Judges 2:1-4. (‘the similitude of the LORD shall he behold’ Num 12:8

44. To Gideon to deliver Israel from Midian. Judges 6:12,14,16,20,21.

45. To Manoah and his wife to declare the birth of Samson. Judges 13:3,9,13,16-18,20-22.

46. To Samuel as a boy. ‘The LORD came and stood and called as at other times, Samuel.’ I Sam. 3:9-14

47. To Solomon and Israel at Temple dedication in 1004BC. I Kings 8:10,11. ‘glory of the LORD filled.’

48. To destroy 185,000 Assyrian soldiers surrounding Jerusalem in 710 BC. 2 Kings 19:35; Isaiah 37:36.

49. To Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-nego in a furnace. ‘form of the fourth is like the Son of God’Daniel 3:25

First this "faithful and discreet slave" was russel himself.  ( The Watchtower, May 1, 1922, page 132. )

But then it was CHANGED to the watchtower organisation itself! ( Watch Tower, 1927, as referenced by Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, Watchtower Society, 1993, page 626.)

Yes, it is such a shame they present a FALSE gospel, though.

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

Are you sugessting that ‘The Lord (Jehovah) said to my Lord (Jehovah) sit thou....'

did you read the post?

On 7/7/2018 at 3:40 PM, Brother Rando said:

Trinitarians are double tongued.  Notice none of these definitions are about God but the one that Jehovah brought forth and begat.   God always existed and that was my point.  Thank you.

 

jehovahs witnesses are fork-tongued.

 

Now that the personal abuse is over with, lets get down to it.

Yes, God has ALWAYS existed.

 

JESUS has ALWAYS existed.

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:40 PM, Brother Rando said:

So paul is an anti-Christian?

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"

No, Paul isn't anti-Christian but trianarians are by claiming these things apply to God.  When it actually applies to Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ is in the image of God, the firstborn of EVERY CREATURE.  Creatures are Created.  

 

Sure, creatures are created. Jesus is not a creature. Again, firstborn here does NOT mean first CREATED.

 

I am getting sick and tired of giving you the SAME facts over and over again and have you simply ignore them. 

You chant your mantras given to you by people who have NO IDEA what Christians believe as if saying something over and over again makes that something true.

I see you REFUSE to engage in my other to-the-point postings where i present ONE point or 1 or 2 verses at a time. No, you prefer to throw out red herrings, make ad homien attacks, make strawman arguments, ignore the passage presented and divert away to other passages without addressing the one presented ( a typical, rehearsed jw trait as shown here by the deceitful and devious woman at 4:09 )

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:40 PM, Brother Rando said:

"?Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered."  (Hebrew 5:8)  This scripture is talking about Christ not God.  If Jesus was God then can we conclude that God learned obedience from the things he suffered?   I think not.

Yes, Christ whilst He was on earth.

On 7/7/2018 at 3:40 PM, Brother Rando said:

"During his life on earth, Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. ?Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.' (Hebrews 5:7-8)
 

Again, of course Jesus had God in heaven whilst He was on earth. Do you expect Him to be an atheist?

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:40 PM, Brother Rando said:

Insert the trinity dogma and it gets you to deny Christ.   The pagan doctrine omits Jesus Christ.  Did God offer up supplication and petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death??  See how silly the trinity doctrine is.... 666 goes in a circle and you never get out of it. 

 

Pagan doctrine? There you so again, mantra. I have a post dealing with just that accusation.

Since either you are too scared to address the point there or i may have missed it, i present it yet AGAIN for you.

 

Is the Trinity a Pagan Concept? No! Because:

i) The Babylonians and Assyrians believed in triads of gods, which were three separate gods (polytheism) governing other gods. This is totally different from the Trinity of only one God (monotheism) with three persons within the one Godhead.

ii) Triads of gods pre-date Christianity by about 700 years and were far removed from Israel..

iii) Some pagan ideas have some truth in them, such as the pagan Flood legends. Just because pagans spoke of a concept that remotely resembles a biblical concept, does not mean that Christians stole it from the pagans.

iv) JWs quote HislopÂ’s The Two Babylons to support their case, yet they donÂ’t tell us that Hislop believes in the Trinity, as seen from HislopÂ’s quote:
‘They all admitted a Trinity, but did they worship the Triune Jehovah?’ (p. 90)

- About 80% of the sources that the WT quotes are from Trinitarians. This begs the question: ‘How can the WT disprove the Trinity by quoting sources who believe the Trinity?

- 15% of their sources are secular works like Encyclopaedia Britannica.

- 5% of WT sources are invalid sources of Biblical truth, eg: sceptics, spiritists, Unitarians.

- The WT always finds some unknown, obscure person to agree with them. They do not examine the credibility of such sources. Most WT sources have no credibility & no authority.

- The WT rarely gives page numbers of its quotes to allow check the source and context.

v) JWs claim they represent the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’. They claim that the Trinity idea was introduced in 325 AD. What they don’t say is that current WT teachings have no precedent in history. They do not say who were the JWs of the first three centuries or later. No early church ‘father’ represented their beliefs. The WT is historically bankrupt.

vi) The WT, by showing a three-headed god, use the ‘straw-man effect’, where they misrepresent what Christians believe, and then proceed to ‘shoot down’ this ‘straw man’.

This is seen in five pictures of three-headed gods which are supposed to represent the God of Christendom. (‘Should you believe in the Trinity’ p 10).

vii) The WT is happy to misquote sources to prove their point.

Consider page 6 ‘Should you believe in the Trinity’, where they misquote the New Encyclopaedia Brittanica by failing to give the full relevant quote. They stop the quote at the asterisk *
‘The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 Edition) correctly states:
“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament”,’
[*They stop the quote here, ignoring the rest of the article which endorses the Trinity:]
‘nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presence and power of God among them - ie, the Holy Spirit, whose coming we connected with the celebration of Pentecost.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction:
‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’ (2 Cor. 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.

Any early church council disputes were over fine points of Trinity clarification, such as the substance, nature and omnipotence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, never over whether the Trinity was right or wrong. The truth of the Trinity was always accepted.
 

On 7/8/2018 at 5:29 AM, Space Merchant said:

But days ago you disrespected what Jesus said what was written, so who is really for Jesus and who is not? And JWs are not a cult, they are Restorationist, they differ from mainstream Christianity because they apply the practices and abilities of the 1st century church, as well as take the Bible with seriousness.

A real cult would be that of the Crusaders, or perhaps the Ku Klux Klan (The KKK) who justify he killing of Christians clearly against the Trinity and those of a racial background or those who defense ones with racial backgrounds. Modern cults would be the Christian Militants or Radicalized Westboro Baptist Church for violence is the motive for them and hate, as well as Christian-Infighting, a practice of which you are displaying here, for Christian-Infighting is a massive problem with mainstreamers.

So in short, you are false for:

• A-Religious Infighting (Christian)
• B-Bearing a false Witness, trying to say Jesus is God, as well as the Holy Spirit being God when everyone knows that the pre-nicene ones and those of the Apostolic Age were NOT Trinitarians.
• C- You deny what Jesus said what was written, even when I called you out for it several times elsewhere before JW Insider moved said response.

The list goes on.

Actually it does. That is if you take into account of root words and or words of origin regarding the Greek Language and that of the Strong's.

Your next problem is Jesus being refereed to as The Promised Seed aka Abrahamic Seed, which puts further emphasis on this firstborn notion, moreover, the cross-references to Genesis 1:26.

I suggest you read up more on Strong's because clearly you lack just like the other guy who believes the Holy Spirit is a person. Trinitarians or disgruntled JWs like yourself, lack Greek and or Hebrew knowledge, you simply read what the word means but never shed any like on Strong's connections, occurrences and root words/meaning.

 

Surely you are grown, Deserter, you do not need someone to baby you by holding your hand in regards to such basic research.

 

You really do not know Jesus, for if you have, you'd realize a Jewish custom and a law alone literally disproves Jesus being God 100%, something of which not just True Christians know, but even Jews and Muslims, to even Buddhist know this, for it is THAT well known.

 

It is 100% fact that Trinitarians are ignorant to such, to which you have already displayed, hence the verses you have typed, location but not quoted, you not knowing what such even means.

 

why do you keep replying to me when you know i am ignoring you? what a shame.

i CAN address EVERY point you bring up, but the WAY you bring it up, i will not waste my time.

19 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial(starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief(foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").

 

This word is NEVER used for archangel. If it is, please show me.

The word ‘Beginning’ is ‘Arche’ (746) in Greek which has a wide range of meanings, such as:

a) ‘Head’ in the Hebrew, Greek, English Interlinear Bible.

He is called ‘the Head’ because He is before all things, all things were created by Him and for Him (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:10). It refers to Christ as the One who created all things, not to Him as a created being.

b) ‘The Active Cause as in Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13, 3:14. Christ is called ‘the beginning’ because He is the active cause of creation.

c) Rule, power or authority. ‘...power (arche) of the governor’ (Luke 20:20). It refers to Christ as the ‘one who begins, the origin, source, creator, or first cause’. (Spiros Zodhiates, NT Word Study, p.260,261)

d) The Originating source through whom God works, not the first of the creatures as held by Arians and Unitarians. (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in NT. Vol 6,p 321).

2) The English word ‘architect’ comes from ‘arche’.

Jesus is the architect of all creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2).

Christ is the source and primary fountainhead of all creation.

3) ‘Arche’ is also used of God as ‘the beginning and the end’.(Rev. 1:8(not KIT), 21:6, 22:13).

The use of ‘arche’ of God Almighty does not mean that God had a created beginning.

God is the beginner and first cause of all creation. ‘Arche’ in Revelation 3:14 is used of Christ in the same sense as the beginner and first cause of all creation.

Ask: Since ‘Arche’ used of God Almighty does not mean that He had a created beginning, why do you insist that when ‘Arche’ is used of Christ that it means He had a created beginning?

4) It is almost always used of a ruler or magistrate or principalities. (Romans 8:38, Ephesians 3:10, Colossians 2:15; Luke 20:20, Jude 6.)

The NWT translates the plural of ‘Arche’ as ‘government officials’ in Luke 12:11.

5) The English word ‘archbishop’ is one who is in authority or rules over bishops.

This means that Christ has authority or rule over all creation in Revelation 3:14.

6) Christ as the ‘beginner’ of creation harmonises with other NT passages about Christ as Creator, such as: Colossians 1:16,17 ‘by him were all things created’; Hebrews 1:2 ‘by whom also he made the worlds’; John 1:3‘all things were made by him’.

The JWs must add ‘other’ in Colossians 1:16,17 to harmonise those verses.

7) Only God is the Creator. ‘I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself’ (Isaiah 44:24).

Since Christ is the Creator of all things, this proves that Christ is God Almighty, just as the Father is.

Conclusion: ‘Beginning’ in Revelation 3:14 is ‘Arche’ meaning that Christ is the active cause, originating source, architect, beginner; and ‘ruler’ over creation.

18 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

Claiming God is Firstborn is an untruth pushed by Anti - Christians.  God is eternal not chief, foremost, or pre-eminent.  Archangel comes from the Greek root word arche',



So paul is an anti-Christian?

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"

8 hours ago, Malum Intellectus said:

TRUST JESUS

 

On, Daniel 3:25. Only because it is King Nebuchadnezzar making that statement, not the Watchtower. Babylonians believed in many “gods” so it wouldn’t be surprising to read that from a person in ancient times.

 

The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series)

 

 

Author(s): Switzerland) International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Congress (2001: Basel

 

Publisher: Society of Biblical Literature, Year: 2003

 

The old interpretation (Breton) has since then been updated to a more factual rendering.

 

Werner Bible Commentary

 

In the Septuagint (but not in the Greek version of Theodotion), Nebuchadnezzar is identified as governing “cities and territories and all those dwelling on the earth from India to Ethiopia.” The Aramaic text of Daniel does not include these words nor does it mention the year when Nebuchadnezzar “made,” or directed the making of, an image of gold. Although the Dead Sea Daniel scroll (4QDana) from about 60 BCE contains only a fragmentary portion of verse 1, the missing part could not have included the year.

 

A Dead Sea Daniel scroll (4QDand) identifies those to whom Nebuchadnezzar then spoke as “his officials.” To them, he mentioned seeing four unbound men “walking in the midst of the fire.” They were unharmed by the flames, and the “fourth one” resembled a “son of the gods” (an “angel of a god” [3:92, LXX]; a “son of a god” [3:92, Theodotion) (3:25)

 

WHICH "earliest" text?

WHERE is it that i can check this statement.

Also, be weary of the "septuagint".

do your own independent homework, my friend. ( I do not mean that in a derogatory way )

22 minutes ago, ShariKind said:

@Jesus.defender,do you believe Jesus was on the earth prior to his appearance as a man? I think it's important to understand inasmuch as the Bible allows us to. You said, Jesus was not on the earth in BODILY form (prior to his human birth). Do you think he was ever on the earth before that in some shape?

"You said, Jesus was not on the earth in BODILY form (prior to his human birth). "

No offense, but from memory, i NEVER said that.

please quote me, my friend.

55 minutes ago, ShariKind said:

But how? I mean many people claim to accept what the Bible says, but they interpret it in their own way. For instance, many believe they are going to be taken to heaven when the earth is burned up, they take this literally as the earth being burned up. (That's just one example of how some believe how the end of the world will happen, although you are on a different subject, the point is: accepting what the Bible says can have many variations of thought as to what it really says.)

Sorry, i meant "Unlike the watchtower followers, i am allowed to think for myself and read the Bible WITHOUT watchtower influence."

Now you are off onto a DIFFERENT topic, the rapture and heaven.

What subject DO you want to discuss?

21 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

@Brother Rando "You are forced to deny the son who was begotten from the Father.   "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)  "

Unlike the watchtower followers, i am allowed to think for myself and read the Bible WITHOUT watchtower influence.

I am forced to accept what the Bible says.

You are forced to believe what the watchtower says their bible says.

Now you are going off from "firstborn" to begotten? Can we not stick to one thing at a time?.

The watchtower has brainwashed you with lies about what Christians believe. You and the watchtower have NO IDEA what Christians believe.

 

But, i WILL answer your "begotten" thing.

 

John 3:16 - ‘He gave His only begotten Son’.

Watchtower teaching: JWs teach that the term ‘Son of God’ refers to Jesus as a separate created being, just as Isaac was called Abraham’s ‘only begotten son’ (Hebrews 11:17), and that Jesus as ‘Son of God’ was not God Himself. JWs claim that Almighty God is the Father of Jesus in the same sense that Abraham is the father of Isaac. JWs claim that God is the senior, and Jesus is the junior - in time, position, power and knowledge.

The Bible teaching: Isaac was not Abraham’s ‘only son’. Abraham had begotten a number of other sons, such as Ishmael, Zimram, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (Genesis 25:2). The term ‘only begotten Son’ means that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son. Hence Jesus is ‘the only begotten Son’ in the sense that no-one else is as unique as Jesus. Jesus is alone all that God is. ‘All things that the Father hath are mine.’ (John 16:15).

If Christ has all the attributes that the Father has, then Christ is God, because only God has eternality, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Question: What did ‘Son of’ mean among the ancients? The idea that the title ‘Son of God’ indicates inferiority to the Father, is based on a faulty conception of what ‘Son of’ meant among the ancients. Though it can mean ‘offspring of’ in some contexts, it also carries the more important meaning: ‘OF THE ORDER OF’

It is used in this way as follows:
i) ‘The sons of the prophets’ (I Kings 20:35) meant ‘of the order of the prophets’;
ii) The ‘sons of the singers’ (Nehemiah 12:28) meant ‘of the order of the singers’;
iii) ‘Of the sons of Asaph’ (Nehemiah 11:22) meant ‘of the order of Asaph’.

Hence, the phrase ‘Son of God’ means ‘of the order of God’ as a claim to Christ’s undiminished Deity.
Ancient Jews and Orientals used the phrase ‘son of’ to indicate sameness of nature and equality of being. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood that He was claiming to be fully equivalent to God.
Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the Jews said, ‘We have a law, and by our
law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God’. (John 19:7).
‘he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.’ (John 5:18).

Ask: If the phrase ‘son of’ meant sameness of nature and equality of being among the ancients, as historical records clearly show, then what does this tell us about the meaning of the phrase ‘Son of God’?

Christ was Son of God before His human birth:

i) ‘For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world . . .’(John 3:17).
That Christ, as the Son of God, was sent into the world, implies that He was the Son of God before His incarnation.
ii) Proverbs 30:4 shows God as the Creator who has a Son: ‘What is his name, and what is his son’s name?’
This speaks of God the Father and God the Son in present tense terms in OT times.
iii) ‘the form of the fourth is like the Son of God’. (Daniel 3:25).
Nebuchadnezzar threw three men into the fiery furnace, yet he saw the Son of God walking with them in the furnace. The Masoretic Text and Septuagint reads, ‘Son of God’(singular) not ‘a son of the gods’ as in the JW New World Translation and the NIV.

18 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

I am....

King James Bible (Hebrew 1:6)
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

The reason you don't believe Col 1:15 is that your cult rejects the Deity of Christ,  It too is a Divine Creation.... a second time from being Born Again... Something completely alien to you. That's why (Hebrews 1:6) says And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world,

Strong's Concordance

theotés: deity

Original Word: θεότης, ητος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: theotés
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-ot'-ace)
Short Definition: deity, Godhead
Definition: deity, Godhead.

 

We are talking about "firstborn".

 ‘Firstborn’ (Greek: prototokos) does NOT mean ‘first-created’ (Greek: protoktisis). First-created (Protoktisis) is never used of Christ in New Testament.
 

John 14:28 ‘The Father is greater (Greek: meizon) than I’ (p.865).

Jesus did not say that ‘the Father is better (Greek: kreitton) than I’.

Greater refers to the Father’s greater position (in heaven), not to a greater nature.

1) Do you agree that a president is greater in position but not better in nature than his people?

2) In view of greater (meaning higher in position) and better (meaning higher in nature - see Hebrews 1:4), is it not clear that in John 14:28 Jesus is speaking of the
Father’s temporary higher position and not by higher nature than Jesus? (p.865).

1) Since Jehovah is called ‘mighty God’ in Isaiah 10:21;and Jeremiah 32:18, just as Jesus is called ‘Mighty God’ (Isaiah 9:6), doesn’t this mean that the Watchtower is wrong
in saying that Jesus as Mighty God means He is a lesser deity?

2) If both Jesus and Jehovah are ‘Mighty God’, then what does this tell you about Jesus’ divine nature?

Psalm 110:1 ‘The Lord (Jehovah) said to my Lord (Adonai) sit thou . . .’ (p.869).

 Did you know that Adonai (Lord) used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1 is also used of the Father in Exodus 23:17, Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 3:11?

16 hours ago, Gone Away said:

And ....first-born......

No, it does not.

Gk: “prototokos in Colossians 1:15) means “pre-eminent or ruler”? David (Psalm 89:27),Ephraim (Genesis 41:50-52 and Jeremiah 31:9), Jacob (Exodus 4:22), and Solomon (IChronicles 3:1,2) were all called “firstborn”, but none of them were born first. (p.860).Why?
Because “firstborn” can mean “chief”, as with Christ, and not first created (Grk: protoktisis).

THE TRINITY

Watchtower Teaching: JW arguments against the Trinity are:

i) If Jesus is God, who ran the universe during the three days that Jesus was dead in the grave? Satan had a great chance to take control.

Answer: Jesus’ body died, not His soul or spirit. He along with the Father and the Holy Spirit still ran the universe.

ii) If Jesus is the immortal God, He could not have died.

Answer: The immortal God, by taking on a mortal body, had His mortal body die.

iii) Since God is not a God of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33), it is impossible that the Bible would talk of a God who could not be understood by human reason. JWs claim that the Trinity is incomprehensible and unreasonable. ‘We worship what we know’ (John 4:22).

Answer: Man’s lack of understanding has never stopped new discoveries. What percent of the total knowledge of the universe do you possess? (about zero percent).

Ask: Could there be something about God that you don’t comprehend?(eg: His Trinity?).

iv) The word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible.

Answer: Neither is ‘Bible’, ‘organisation’, Kingdom Hall’, chocolate, motor car, etc.

Say to the JW: ‘By this logic you would agree that Kingdom Halls don’t exist either?’

This is shallow reasoning designed to throw the Christian off guard. If it can be proved that the Bible teaches a certain truth, then naming that truth does not make it unbiblical. We should ask: ‘Is the particular teaching in the Bible?’

v) The Watchtower has misrepresented the Trinity doctrine in order to make its denial more plausible. 

They erect a straw man that is easily knocked down.

They call the Trinity a ‘freakish looking, three headed God’ (Let God be True, p 102)
‘This doctrine of three Gods in one God . . .’ (Studies in Scripture, 1899, Vol 5, p 60,61)

Note: Trinitarians do not believe in ‘three Gods in one God’.

They believe in one God, with three co-equal persons in the one Godhead.

1. Refuting the Watchtower’s FALSE Quotes of Early Church Writers

The Watchtower is quite happy to tell lies by inventing statements allegedly made by six Ante-Nicene Church writers who lived before 325 AD. Page 7 of their publication ‘Should you believe in the Trinity?’ Shows the Watchtower’s claims that these ancient writers taught that Jesus Christ was not God. These quotes are FALSE and INVENTED by the Watchtower. They are easily refuted by the photocopied excerpts of the 10 volume set of genuine Ante-Nicene church fathers quotes that prove these early writers strong belief in and defence of the Trinity.

In the Watchtower’s false quotes we notice that:

1) None of these references are given a source, making them nearly impossible to check. It is almost certain that the Watchtower has invented these quotes.
2) Notice the lie of the central bold quote on page 7: ‘There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead’.

We refute this Watchtower lie, and prove beyond doubt that both the Trinity and the full deity of Christ were well known and firmly believed as early as 110 AD as seen from the quotes by the Ante-Nicene (before 325 AD) church fathers which follow the Watchtower quote.

The following quotes are from the 10 Volume set of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, by editors Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, American Reprint of the Edinburgh edition, revised and arranged by A C Coxe, published by W.B.Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, reprinted in May 1987.

The Watchtower’s claim that Constantine and the Council of Nicea introduced the deity of Christ and Trinity doctrines in 325 AD is proven false by these pre-325 AD quotes to the contrary:

i) Justin Martyr (110-165 AD),Volume I, page 263: ‘His Son, being God’ Volume I, page 219 Justin Martyr says:: ‘Christ existed as God before the ages’ Volume I, page 264). Justin Martyr says that ‘Christ is Lord and God’.
ii) Irenaeus (120-202 AD) Volume I, page 328 not only shows the NWT to be wrong on John 1:1
but also calls Christ ‘God’
iii) Clement of Alexandria (153-217 AD) In Volume 2, p 468, written in 193 AD, Clement clearly quotes the Holy Trinity as Father, Son & Holy Spirit. page 173
iv) Tertullian (200-250 AD) Volume 3, page 598 page 598 Tertullian against Praxeas, Volume 3, p.606 Tertullian correctly quotes John 1:1, saying that Christ is God. (Volume 3, p. 607) Tertullian again quotes the
Trinity on a fourth occasion. (Vol 4, page 99)
v) Hippolytus (170-236 AD) Volume 5, page 228 mentions the Trinity and quotes John 1:1 correctly.
vi) Origen (185-254 AD) Volume 4, page 255. Twice he quotes the word ‘Trinity’, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Also on page 258 he quotes the Trinity in ‘Origen de Principiis’, written in 230 AD.
vii) Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) Volume 6, pages 42, 45

2. Is the Trinity a Pagan Concept? No! Because:

i) The Babylonians and Assyrians believed in triads of gods, which were three separate gods (polytheism) governing other gods. This is totally different from the Trinity of only one God (monotheism) with three persons within the one Godhead.

ii) Triads of gods pre-date Christianity by about 700 years and were far removed from Israel..

iii) Some pagan ideas have some truth in them, such as the pagan Flood legends. Just because pagans spoke of a concept that remotely resembles a biblical concept, does not mean that Christians stole it from the pagans.

iv) JWs quote Hislop’s The Two Babylons to support their case, yet they don’t tell us that Hislop believes in the Trinity, as seen from Hislop’s quote:
‘They all admitted a Trinity, but did they worship the Triune Jehovah?’ (p. 90)

- About 80% of the sources that the WT quotes are from Trinitarians. This begs the question: ‘How can the WT disprove the Trinity by quoting sources who believe the Trinity?

- 15% of their sources are secular works like Encyclopaedia Britannica.

- 5% of WT sources are invalid sources of Biblical truth, eg: sceptics, spiritists, Unitarians.

- The WT always finds some unknown, obscure person to agree with them. They do not examine the credibility of such sources. Most WT sources have no credibility & no authority.

- The WT rarely gives page numbers of its quotes to allow check the source and context.

v) JWs claim they represent the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’. They claim that the Trinity idea was introduced in 325 AD. What they don’t say is that current WT teachings have no precedent in history. They do not say who were the JWs of the first three centuries or later. No early church ‘father’ represented their beliefs. The WT is historically bankrupt.

vi) The WT, by showing a three-headed god, use the ‘straw-man effect’, where they misrepresent what Christians believe, and then proceed to ‘shoot down’ this ‘straw man’.

This is seen in five pictures of three-headed gods which are supposed to represent the God of Christendom. (‘Should you believe in the Trinity’ p 10).

vii) The WT is happy to misquote sources to prove their point.

Consider page 6 ‘Should you believe in the Trinity’, where they misquote the New Encyclopaedia Brittanica by failing to give the full relevant quote. They stop the quote at the asterisk *
‘The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 Edition) correctly states:
“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament”,’
[*They stop the quote here, ignoring the rest of the article which endorses the Trinity:]
‘nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presence and power of God among them - ie, the Holy Spirit, whose coming we connected with the celebration of Pentecost.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction:
‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’ (2 Cor. 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.

Any early church council disputes were over fine points of Trinity clarification, such as the substance, nature and omnipotence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, never over whether the Trinity was right or wrong. The truth of the Trinity was always accepted.

3. Refuting Watchtowers’ wrong application of I Corinthians 14:33

‘for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace . . .’

Watchtower Teaching: JWs say that because God is not the author of confusion, the Trinity doctrine cannot be true because it is so unreasonable. How can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each be God, and yet there be only one God? It doesn’t make sense to them.

Bible Teaching: Just because one is unable to fully understand something, doesn’t mean that it is false.

i) Finite humans cannot possibly understand everything about the infinite God.

‘How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out.’ (Romans 11:33)

‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts’. (Isaiah 55:8,9)

ii) Can you fully understand how light can be both a particle of matter and a wave form?

iii) Can you fully understand how God did not have a beginning? (No) Do you reject the idea?

Ask: Should we reject the Trinity doctrine because we don’t fully understand it, when we accept other things about God and the universe which we don’t fully understand.

I Corinthians 14:33 means that a church should avoid disharmony in its services by only
having two or three prophets speak in a service, and only one at a time.
‘Confusion’ means ‘parts of a whole which are at strife with one another’.
‘Peace’ means ‘parts of a whole acting in harmony’.

5. Refuting WT’s misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29

‘Hear,O Israel, the Lord (YHWH) our God (Elohim) is one Lord (YHWH).’ (Deut 6:4)

Watchtower teaching: JWs say that, since God is one, He cannot be Triune at the same time. Why would God speak as one person if He were composed of three persons?

Bible teaching: The ordinary name of God (Elohim) is in the plural form ‘Hear, O, Israel, Jehovah our Elohim, one Jehovah.’ Deut.6:4

If God had intended to assert a solitary, exclusive type of unity, the expression would have been ‘Eloah’, not the plural ‘Elohim’.

It does not say: ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah, our Elohim, one Eloah.’

The use of Elohim (a uniplural noun) means: ‘there is a real plurality, yet Jehovah is one.’

Ask: Who is Jehovah? Is it the Father alone? Is Jesus Jehovah? Is the Holy Spirit Jehovah?

If we can find verses teaching that Jesus is Jehovah (or God) and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah,
then we have proved the Trinity.

i) The Holy Spirit is called Jehovah:‘Now Jehovah is the Spirit’.(II Corinthians 3:17 NWT)
ii) Jesus Christ is called God, as follows:
(1) ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto’(I Tim 6:14-16)
(2) ‘The Word was God.’ (John 1:1)
(3) ‘of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2:13)
(4) ‘the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ’. (II Peter 1:1)
(5) ‘if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.’ (John 8:24)
(6) ‘Before Abraham was, I am.’ (John 8:58)
(7) ‘God was manifest in the flesh’. (I Timothy 3:16)
(8) ‘Thomas said unto him, My Lord and My God’. (John 20:28)
(9) ‘in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ (Colossians 2:9)
(10) ‘unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God is forever.’ (Hebrews 1:8)
(11) ‘If you publicly declare . . . that Jesus is Lord.’ (KIT: ‘ha Adon’ in Hebrew footnote of Romans 10:9. In the 1961 edition of NWT, p.1453, ‘ha Adon’ = Jehovah).
(12) ‘that he (Christ) might be Lord both of the dead and the living’. (Romans 14:9).
In verses 6-11 of NWT ‘??????’(Lord) is translated 7 times as Jehovah, except in v.9. Why?
(13) ‘in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.’ (I John 5:20)
(14) ‘feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.’ (Acts 20:28)

6. Notice how God reveals Himself in stages to man:

(1) God revealed His Unity as the one and only true God, to refute the nations’ many gods.
(2) God revealed the Trinity (Jehovah=Father+Son+HS) in the Old Testament in:

‘Jehovah your God is God of gods (the Father), and Lord of lords (the Son)’. (Deut.10:17).

‘Thus saith Jehovah the King of Israel (the Father),and his redeemer Jehovah of hosts (the Son).Is44:6

‘God said “let us make man in our image . . .”.’ Genesis 1:26

‘Jehovah God said, “Behold the man is become as one of us . . .’ Genesis 3:22

‘Jehovah came down . . . the Lord said, let us go down . . .’ Genesis 11:5,7

‘the Lord saying . . . who will go for us?’ Isaiah 6:8

‘What is his name....and what is his Son’s name.’ Proverbs 30:4

‘the Lord God (the Father), and his Spirit (HS), hath sent me (Jehovah the Son).’ Isaiah 48:16.

(3) God revealed the fullness of the Trinity doctrine in the New Testament:

Matthew 28:19 ‘baptizing them in the name (singular name, not plural) of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’

I John 5:7 ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.’

Revelation 22:1,3,4 ‘the throne (of God and of the Lamb) shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him; they shall see his face, and his name shall be in their foreheads.’

Key:God and the Lamb have one throne, one name, one face and one ownership of servants.

II Corinthians 13:14 ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost’. There is one God, but three persons within the Godhead.

(4) Early Christians with a strong Jewish background, who knew Deuteronomy 6:4, continually refer to Jesus as ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ (Romans 10:13, I Thess 5:2, I Peter 2:3, 3:15.) They often apply to Jesus many Old Testament texts which refer to Jehovah, such as:

a) Jesus Christ in Matthew 3:1-3 fulfils Isaiah 40:3 to‘Prepare the way of Jehovah’ and Elohim.
b) Jesus Christ’s glory in John 12:41 is Jehovah’s glory in Isaiah 6:1-5.
c) Jesus Christ’s voice as the sound of many waters in Revelation 1:15 is identical to Jehovah’s voice as the sound of many waters in Ezekiel 43:2.
d) Jesus Christ being pierced in Rev 1:7 is the same one as Jehovah being pierced in Zech
12:10.
e) Jesus Christ being called on for salvation in Romans 10:13, is the same as Jehovah being called on for salvation in Joel 2:32
f) Jesus Christ, the Lamb, is the everlasting light in Revelation 21:23, just as Jehovah ‘shall be . . . an everlasting light’ in Isaiah 60:19,20.

Ask:Do you agree that Trinitarians believe Deuteronomy 6:4 that there is only one true God?

Ask: Do you understand that Trinitarians don’t teach that there are three gods in the Trinity, but that there is only one God with three persons within the one Godhead?

Ask: How do you explain that the early Jewish Christians who believed Deuteronomy 6:4, applied to Jesus many Old Testament texts that were originally written of Jehovah?
 

John 3:16 - ‘He gave His only begotten Son’.

Watchtower teaching: JWs teach that the term ‘Son of God’ refers to Jesus as a separate created being, just as Isaac was called Abraham’s ‘only begotten son’ (Hebrews 11:17), and that Jesus as ‘Son of God’ was not God Himself. JWs claim that Almighty God is the Father of Jesus in the same sense that Abraham is the father of Isaac. JWs claim that God is the senior, and Jesus is the junior - in time, position, power and knowledge.

The Bible teaching: Isaac was not Abraham’s ‘only son’. Abraham had begotten a number of other sons, such as Ishmael, Zimram, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (Genesis 25:2). The term ‘only begotten Son’ means that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son. Hence Jesus is ‘the only begotten Son’ in the sense that no-one else is as unique as Jesus. Jesus is alone all that God is. ‘All things that the Father hath are mine.’ (John 16:15).

If Christ has all the attributes that the Father has, then Christ is God, because only God has eternality, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Question: What did ‘Son of’ mean among the ancients? The idea that the title ‘Son of God’ indicates inferiority to the Father, is based on a faulty conception of what ‘Son of’ meant among the ancients. Though it can mean ‘offspring of’ in some contexts, it also carries the more important meaning: ‘OF THE ORDER OF’

It is used in this way as follows:
i) ‘The sons of the prophets’ (I Kings 20:35) meant ‘of the order of the prophets’;
ii) The ‘sons of the singers’ (Nehemiah 12:28) meant ‘of the order of the singers’;
iii) ‘Of the sons of Asaph’ (Nehemiah 11:22) meant ‘of the order of Asaph’.

Hence, the phrase ‘Son of God’ means ‘of the order of God’ as a claim to Christ’s undiminished Deity.
Ancient Jews and Orientals used the phrase ‘son of’ to indicate sameness of nature and equality of being. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood that He was claiming to be fully equivalent to God.
Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the Jews said, ‘We have a law, and by our
law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God’. (John 19:7).
‘he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.’ (John 5:18).

Ask: If the phrase ‘son of’ meant sameness of nature and equality of being among the ancients, as historical records clearly show, then what does this tell us about the meaning of the phrase ‘Son of God’?

Christ was Son of God before His human birth:

i) ‘For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world . . .’(John 3:17).
That Christ, as the Son of God, was sent into the world, implies that He was the Son of God before His incarnation.
ii) Proverbs 30:4 shows God as the Creator who has a Son: ‘What is his name, and what is his son’s name?’
This speaks of God the Father and God the Son in present tense terms in OT times.
iii) ‘the form of the fourth is like the Son of God’. (Daniel 3:25).
Nebuchadnezzar threw three men into the fiery furnace, yet he saw the Son of God walking with them in the furnace. The Masoretic Text and Septuagint reads, ‘Son of God’(singular) not ‘a son of the gods’ as in the JW New World Translation and the NIV.

@Brother Rando "You are forced to deny the son who was begotten from the Father.   "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)  "

Unless the watchtower cult, i am allowed to think for myself and read the Bible WITHOUT watchtower influence.

I am forced to accept what the Bible says.

You are forced to believe what the watchtower says their bible says.

Now you are going off from "firstborn" to begotten? Can we not stick to one thing at a time?.

The watchtower has brainwashed you with lies about what Christians believe. You and the watchtower have NO IDEA what Christians believe.

But, i WILL answer your "begotten" thing.

John 3:16 - ‘He gave His only begotten Son’.

Watchtower teaching: JWs teach that the term ‘Son of God’ refers to Jesus as a separate created being, just as Isaac was called Abraham’s ‘only begotten son’ (Hebrews 11:17), and that Jesus as ‘Son of God’ was not God Himself. JWs claim that Almighty God is the Father of Jesus in the same sense that Abraham is the father of Isaac. JWs claim that God is the senior, and Jesus is the junior - in time, position, power and knowledge.

The Bible teaching: Isaac was not Abraham’s ‘only son’. Abraham had begotten a number of other sons, such as Ishmael, Zimram, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (Genesis 25:2). The term ‘only begotten Son’ means that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son. Hence Jesus is ‘the only begotten Son’ in the sense that no-one else is as unique as Jesus. Jesus is alone all that God is. ‘All things that the Father hath are mine.’ (John 16:15).

If Christ has all the attributes that the Father has, then Christ is God, because only God has eternality, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Question: What did ‘Son of’ mean among the ancients? The idea that the title ‘Son of God’ indicates inferiority to the Father, is based on a faulty conception of what ‘Son of’ meant among the ancients. Though it can mean ‘offspring of’ in some contexts, it also carries the more important meaning: ‘OF THE ORDER OF’

It is used in this way as follows:
i) ‘The sons of the prophets’ (I Kings 20:35) meant ‘of the order of the prophets’;
ii) The ‘sons of the singers’ (Nehemiah 12:28) meant ‘of the order of the singers’;
iii) ‘Of the sons of Asaph’ (Nehemiah 11:22) meant ‘of the order of Asaph’.

Hence, the phrase ‘Son of God’ means ‘of the order of God’ as a claim to Christ’s undiminished Deity.
Ancient Jews and Orientals used the phrase ‘son of’ to indicate sameness of nature and equality of being. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood that He was claiming to be fully equivalent to God.
Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the Jews said, ‘We have a law, and by our
law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God’. (John 19:7).
‘he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.’ (John 5:18).

Ask: If the phrase ‘son of’ meant sameness of nature and equality of being among the ancients, as historical records clearly show, then what does this tell us about the meaning of the phrase ‘Son of God’?

Christ was Son of God before His human birth:

i) ‘For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world . . .’(John 3:17).
That Christ, as the Son of God, was sent into the world, implies that He was the Son of God before His incarnation.
ii) Proverbs 30:4 shows God as the Creator who has a Son: ‘What is his name, and what is his son’s name?’
This speaks of God the Father and God the Son in present tense terms in OT times.
iii) ‘the form of the fourth is like the Son of God’. (Daniel 3:25).
Nebuchadnezzar threw three men into the fiery furnace, yet he saw the Son of God walking with them in the furnace. The Masoretic Text and Septuagint reads, ‘Son of God’(singular) not ‘a son of the gods’ as in the JW New World Translation and the NIV.

6 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

Strong's Concordance ktisis: creation (the act or the product) Original Word: ??????, ???, ? Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: ktisis Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-is) Short Definition: creation, creature, institution Definition: (often of the founding of a city), (a) abstr: creation, (b) concr: creation, creature, institution; always of Divine work, (c) an institution, ordinance. HELPS Word-studies Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo). If Colossians 1:15 is not talking about Jesus Christ then whom is it talking about?  God??   He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;   (Jesus Christ is Firstborn of ALL Creation.) He is the Beginning of ALL Creation.  "In the Beginning was the WORD" (John 1:1)  "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth." (John 1:14) You are forced to deny the son who was begotten from the Father.   "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)     Â

 

yest again you are all over the place, my friend. Typical of the jw followers. not sticking to one point but red herring all over the place.

rather than address the word used for "firstborn", you IGNORE it and go onto something else.

The word is "??????????" (pr?totokos) 
Let's try this AGAIN.

Colossians 1:15 - ‘the firstborn (Greek: prototokos 4416) of every creature’.

JWs use this verse to teach that Jesus was created at a point in time as an angel.

They ignore the evidence and insist that the word ‘firstborn’ here means ‘first created’, ‘the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons’.

The Bible teaching:

1) ‘Firstborn’ (Greek: prototokos) does NOT mean ‘first-created’ (Greek: protoktisis). First-created (Protoktisis) is never used of Christ in New Testament.

Question:Where is it used of Jesus in New Testament?

Question: Why didn’t Paul use the term ‘first-created’ (protoktisis) in Colossians 1:15 if he meant that Christ was the first one created by Jehovah?

2) Ask: What does ‘firstborn’ (Greek: prototokos 4416) mean?

Answer: ‘Pre-eminent, Ruler, Sovereign, First in rank’.

It is used in other passages which refer to Christ:

i. Romans 8:29 ‘that he might be the firstborn among many brethren’. ‘Prototokos’ presents Christ as the pre-eminent member of the group (S. Zodhiates NT, p 1249).
ii. Colossians 1:15. ‘The firstborn of every creature’ Christ is the one pre-eminent and supreme ruler over all creation (S Zodhiates NT, p 1250). v.16 ‘By him were all things created’ means that Christ Himself is not part of Creation (John 1:3).
iii. Colossians 1:18 ‘He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the
beginning (arche), the firstborn (prototokos=Ruler) from the dead; that in all
things he might have the pre-eminence (proteuon)Â’.
‘Arche’ means ‘first cause’ (Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:18) and is parallel to
‘prototokos’ in Colossians 1:15,18, both asserting Christ’s pre-eminence.
Note: ‘Proteuon’ (pre-eminence) present tense is used only in Colossians 1:18 and indicates not an acquired right to be ruler and pre-eminent, but an inherent right by virtue of His nature. Christ, being the Creator, deserves to have pre-eminence.
iv. Hebrews 1:6 ‘And again, when he bringeth the firstbegotten(prototokos=Ruler) into the world, he saith ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him’.
Alternately, translate this as ‘And when He again brings the firstborn into the
worldÂ’, refers to ChristÂ’s second coming when Christ as King will be worshipped
by the angels. Christ is exalted even above all the angels.
v. Revelation 1:5 ‘And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the
firstbegotten (prototokos=Ruler) of the dead, and the prince (arche = chief) of the kings of the earth.’ Here ‘prototokos’ means that Christ is first of those to be
resurrected, and prince (arche) means ruler of earthÂ’s kings at His second coming.
Note: JWs compare Christ as the firstborn of all creation with the firstborn son of Pharaoh. This is nonsensical, because it is true that Pharaoh parented his son, but it is not true that ‘all creation’ parented Jesus.
3) We must understand what the original speaker or writer intended by the words which he used. The ancient Hebrews used the term ‘firstborn son’ when referring to the preeminent son, regardless of whether or not he was the first son born to the parents. The son with the title ‘firstborn’ had the right of primogeniture which meant that:
i) He acquired a special blessing (Genesis 27);
ii) He became heir of a double share of the fatherÂ’s wealth (Deuteronomy 21:17);
iii) He replaced his father as the family head. He had authority over his brothers;
iv) He represented the father in civil and religious matters;
v) He had some holiness because through him flowed the common blood of the tribe (Genesis 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17).
Key: The term ‘firstborn’ does not refer to the first one born, but to the pre-eminent one in the family. Consider these examples where the son with the title ‘firstborn’ was not born first:
(1) David was the last born son of Jesse, yet Psalm 89:27 says of him: ‘Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth’. (v.20 onwards refers to David).
(2) Ephraim was the second born son of Joseph: ‘The name of the second called he Ephraim.’ (Genesis 41:50-52). Yet ‘Ephraim is my firstborn’ (Jeremiah 31:9). This was because of his pre-eminent position. Manasseh was born first to Joseph, but Ephraim became the firstborn because of his pre-eminence.
(3) Jacob (Israel) was the second son born to Isaac, after Esau, yet God says of Israel, ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn.’ (Exodus 4:22). Esau says of himself, ‘I am Esau thy firstborn’. (Genesis 27:19). Esau means that he was born first and should have the birthright. God means that Israel, though born second, took the pre-eminent position. Hence, in this sense Christ is firstborn because of His pre-eminence, not because He was created first as JWs think.
(4) Solomon was born to David later, and the line of the kings came through Solomon,yet Amnon was born first (I Chronicles 3:2).
(5) Isaac was born 13 years after Ishmael, yet Isaac took the pre-eminent position in the family.(Genesis 17:19).
(6) Judah was the fourth son born to Jacob (Genesis 29:35), yet Judah received the dominion and line of Christ, even though Reuben being born first forfeited his right of primogeniture due to fornication (Genesis 49:3,4)
4) Firstborn can be rendered metaphorically, not meaning born first. Examples include:
i) Job 18:13 ‘the firstborn of death shall devour his strength’. As the firstborn son held the chief place, so Job refers to the chiefest (most deadly) disease that death possessed;
ii) Isaiah 14:30 ‘The firstborn of the poor shall feed’, means the poorest of the poor.

Conclusion: Firstborn does not mean born first or created first. Rather, it is a title of first rank, or pre-eminent position. Paul calls Christ the firstborn (prototokos = Ruler).

Ask: What does Psalm 89:27 mean by calling David firstborn, when he was the last born son?

Ask: Why didn’t Paul use ‘first created’ (protoktisis) of Christ in Colossians 1:15 if he intended to teach that Christ was the first one created by Jehovah?
 

 

7 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

No, Anti-Christians bear a false witness against Christ.... they believe in the false theology of the trinity that rejects CHRIST.  

?So when he comes into the world, he says: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me. ?You did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin offerings.’ ?Then I said: ‘Look! I have come (in the scroll it is written about me) to do your will, O God.’” (Hebrews 10:15-7)

Trintarians reject that Christ came to do God's WILL.   "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 7)

By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time. (Hebrews 10-10)

The scriptures don't make the claim that the body that Jesus sacrificed was taken back... 

 

 

And thats EXACTLY what cults like jehovahs witnesses do.

 

More correctly, they bear witness against a FALSE Jesus.

 

Lets stop all these videos in the text, ok? I can do that too. Lets TALK.