Anna

The name "Jehovah" on the dome of the Old Catholic St. Martinskirche in Olten, Switzerland, 1521 (wikipedia)

I haven't had a chance to look at Gerard's paper yet, as I need to settle down properly for that, with a cup of coffee or something, but I was wondering why the pronunciation should be so important... I took a quick peek at what wikipedia had to say about the topic of Jehovah, and with regard to the pronunciation, one of the quotes mentions a scholar named Francis B Dennio who in the Journal of Biblical Literature, said: "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right." Dennio argued that the form "Jehovah" is not a barbarism, but is the best English form available, being that it has for centuries gathered the necessary connotations and associations for valid use in English".

Thanks @JW Insider, it should be a good discussion. I have already got a few of Gerard's papers downloaded from the academia website when we were discussing the controversial "desolation of Jerusalem 587/607" subject. But that's another topic..... I will take a look at this paper

Jack Ryan is getting a little carried away, perhaps he needs to go for a jog or take up some kind of sports...?

Isn't there a big difference between active condemnation or criticism of the LGBT community and a mere non support of it? Isn't being forced to support that movement or being criticized/ostracized for not supporting it actually interfering with human rights?

I guess she is talking from personal experience or the "testimony" from others who have left? She makes it sound like JW parents revel in the idea that their children are going to personally witness and suffer persecution. "There is no comfort" ? Of course there is comfort, and I would hope parents of young children who show concern and fear over the videos would be sensible enough to put their child's mind at ease with age appropriate explanations. A good topic for family worship no doubt. I have read a few "life stories" of ex witnesses who say that as children they were traumatized by images of Armageddon in the earlier publications. The scene with the little boy in the video perhaps illustrates that very instance. Parents however are shown clearly a suggestion of how to deal with that kind of concern a child might have. I would say the video alerts parents to keep an eye out and be proactive in addressing great tribulation and Armageddon related issues....Just my thoughts anyway, but since I no longer have young children, out of interest I will ask a few of the moms who do.

I am not too comfortable with this idea either, only because of the simple fact that Jehovah gave the Bible to everyone, and he gives holy spirit to anyone asking, so that they can understand the Bible. From experience I have known spiritually mature brothers and sisters express some ideas which were not at the time "officially" taught, but did become so later on. It seems like they had divine insight? Or was it just that they were very good Bible students and reasoned on things logically? Even ones who had not known what Jehovah's Witnesses taught, like @Gone Away were able to work some things out that were contrary to popular belief in Christendom. I believe it is the capacity of every good Bible student, whether of the anointed or not, to have insight. The important thing is though to have the wisdom to wait if we have reasoned out something which is not an "official" teaching. Are we going to get upset about the 1% or more that we think is not right, and forget about the bigger percentage that has benefited our lives as one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I have know people who had previously been involved in all kinds of religions who upon reading one of JW publications have declared "this is the Truth". One studious lady (a staunch Catholic) who became a very good friend of mine, even flung the "Truth Book" across the room because she could see that what she read made perfect sense and that what she had previously believed was wrong, and that upset her so much. My own mother in-law, who had always been God fearing, after reading the "Truth Book" , said all those unanswered questions she had were answered, and all the pieces of the puzzle came together. There are many, many more examples I could cite, and I am sure you have read the many experiences of people who have benefited from learning from a small group of anointed Christians who collected their perception of what the Bible "really" teaches into publications, which helped them understand the Bible's message more clearly. I think when we start doubting the "exclusive group" it is good to focus on the positive things we have gained from our "associating" with them.

I think its a cultural thing too. Some countries do this, others don't so much.

They did as a whole, however the problem was the total misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:5-7 by some elders. I personally know of an instance where the elder advised to keep the matter away from secular authorities lest it brought shame to Jehovah. That was the attitude of some in the 80's as far as I know. It was never the policy of the society on the whole though. I am so pleased we have a concise, transparent document now which informs not just the elders, but also the publishers and anyone else of how cases of child abuse should be handed. Every one can be on the same page now. I particularly like par. 10 because it makes a clear distinction between congregational matters and secular matters of the same same instances: "Child abuse is a serious sin. If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.—Romans 13:1-4. This is also good for instances where congregationally a perpetrator is not disfellowshipped because of lack of evidence or some other reason, but if the perpetrator is convicted of a crime by secular authorities, especially the crime of sexual abuse of children, then this notoriety may warrant disfelowshipping. For those who haven't read the document yet: https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

I had to scroll up quite a number of posts to find the part I said I was going to reply to later. Just getting around to it now. So isn't this because when Jesus is talking about "the least of these his brothers" he is not talking about just anyone (neighbor) but rather he is talking about his anointed brothers?

Just this morning in field service a long time faithful brother who was working with us mentioned the Jonah video (we have had our convention already, no spoilers here as most know there is a Jonah video) and that the people repented after the judgement message. He said he was wondering whether during the judgement message that we are going to declare, there will be people that will "repent" and maybe not even get baptized, but will be judged favorably and not be destroyed just like the Ninevites.....Our understanding has been, and is still current it appears, is that when we declare the judgement message after Babylon the Great is destroyed ("the hailstone message") it will be too late for anybody. It was brought out in the talk "proclamation of the hailstone message" that according to Revelation 16:21, the people will blaspheme God, so no repentance there evidently. However, I wonder how the brothers can be so sure that this hailstone message will be an actual proclamation, and made by us? We had a little trial run some years ago with the "false religion is nearing its end" tract and a few thought this was it. But obviously it wasn't. How can we be so sure that this is what Revelation 16 is talking about? because it seems to me that since an angel is pouring out the seven bowls of God's anger it would be a supernatural occasion, plus it sounds more like Armageddon already. It could be said that the preaching work we do now is a judgement message like that of Jonah. But I see a distinct difference. We tell people the good news, and to repent as per what Jesus instructed us. With Jonah however there was no good news and no mention of repentance, he went there to tell the people Nineveh WILL be overthrown no ifs or buts. When our message supposedly changes from that of good news to judgement, how is that not going to be similar to Jonah's message?

What makes you think Jesus wasn't sinless? Hang on, Christians also believe this. Attempts have been made to define the trinity, but they sound so alienated from what the Bible says, it's almost sounds like trying define a multiple personality disorder. In fact reading some explanations of what the trinity is supposed to mean really puts my brain in a pretzel. Here is one: " What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as “I” and others as “You.” So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because he regards the Son as a “You,” even though he regards himself as “I.” Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards himself as an “I” and the other two as a “You.” These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but “a form of personal existence other than a difference in being” and " The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God’s one, undivided being is an “unfolding” into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being". I have no idea how someone could have come up with something like that from reading the Bible. I think I would rather go and solve abstract algebra than attempt to logically understand this gobbledygook....

That is the logical conclusion of course. Unless we look at our preaching as an opportunity to express our faith and teach others like Jesus said we should. I suppose it is up to Jehovah how he handles the part where no one gets a chance to ever hear (such as India and China and other places like that) and I am confident he will handle it with love and justice. That is why I think (my opinion) that we (the org.) is being a little presumptuous in saying that only Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved (specifically go through Armageddon) HOWEVER, it IS what the scriptures indicate. I am talking about non Christian religions, (which have billions of adherents!). And when the Bible talks about "doing good to Christ's brothers" (assuming he means other people, whether religious or not) then that would make the other parts of the scriptures where it is clearly stated that to be saved one must believe in Jesus, questionable. The only way around that would be if that scripture was applied after Armageddon where the people would be given a chance to be informed and then choose. The ones who would go through Armageddon would be ones who have had their hearts read and were seen as having potential of accepting Jesus. These are just my musings

Well, he/she interprets it the way he/she wants to, because for some reason he/she thinks it's better for God to be in three joined pieces, rather than a whole. I find that when someone has this conviction, then there is actually no point of arguing. Only persons who are open minded admit that the teaching of the trinity makes no sense..... It is interesting to see that if a person has no prior bias (no prior knowledge of the Bible or Christian religions) and they read all of the Hebrew scriptures, they naturally conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings.

I think the biggest problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe Jesus and God are two separate beings, somehow designate Jesus to a low position. But that is not the case at all. I will not deny that Jesus (when not in human form) is god-like. A powerful spiritual being like God. This position allows perfectly for a son father relationship. The father was first and the son was second. Just like it is with humans who have a family, with the father being the head, so it is with the spiritual heavenly family also. God is the head over all the other spiritual beings including his only begotten son, who he created exclusively by himself before anything else was created. Indeed a very lofty and special position for Jesus. All the other spiritual beings were also called sons of God, as are even humans, but only Jesus had a unique beginning, that being personally created by his father. The point is he had a beginning, whereas God did not. Also Jesus is able to think and act independently of God. Jesus is god, or if you like, even god the son. But he is not Almighty God. He is not one half of a Siamese twin nor clone with Almighty God. I do not see the Bible teaching that. God did not disembody himself and send one part, the "Jesus" part, to the earth. I do not see the Bible teaching that either. What I do see the Bible teaching is that, at great pain to himself, he sent his most precious son to the earth, to become a human, so that he could buy back what Adam and Eve lost. Because Jesus is able to act and think independently of God, the sacrifice had validity. If Jesus was God, then how would the sacrifice even work? It would make no sense at all....

They thought they knew what he was saying, but evidently they didn't. Because Jesus immediately refuted such thoughts: John 5: 18-24 This is why the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.i 19 Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing.j For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner. 20 For the Father has affection for the Son k and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, so that you may marvel.l 21 For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive,m so the Son also makes alive whomever he wants to.n 22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son,o 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.p 24 Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life". I cannot help but see that Jesus is talking about himself, and a separate person; his father. John 10:30 -36 ( living Bible) 30 I and the Father are one.” 31 Then again the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him. 32 Jesus said, “At God’s direction I have done many a miracle to help the people. For which one are you killing me?” 33 They replied, “Not for any good work, but for blasphemy; you, a mere man, have declared yourself to be God.” 34-36 “In your own Law it says that men are gods!” he replied. “So if the Scripture, which cannot be untrue, speaks of those as gods to whom the message of God came, do you call it blasphemy when the one sanctified and sent into the world by the Father says, ‘I am the Son of God’? Jesus took this opportunity to clarify he is NOT God, but that God is his father

That's my fault. I should have clarified that the wheatlike Christians are supposed to only be the anointed. Could this whole parable perhaps refer to two groups (weeds and wheat) rather than individual people? And to an event or situation? The first event or situation being that throughout centuries wheatlike Christians were intermingled with weeds (the growing together). Then in the last days, the second event or situation began (the harvest) where there was a separation of those groups who were wheatlike and those who were weeds. In other words the true church was identified and the false church was identified and they were separated from each other (harvested therefor no longer growing together and intermingled). Then the third event or situation in the future (Armageddon) where the weeds, that have been harvested (for a 100 years already) will be bundled and burned, and the wheat (that has been separate from the weeds for a 100 years already) will be taken into the storehouse (heaven). This scenario only works if we assume the wheatike Christians are the anointed, and are counted as a group, rather than individuals.

Why don't you ask him? His page says that he typically "replies instantly". Let me know what he saysÂ

Personally I am not comfortable with some of the comments the GB have made regarding faith in the organization, apparently putting it on the same level as faith in God. I do have a problem with that. On the other hand, if this reasoning is made in good faith, and has the effect of unifying the brothers, then as mentioned previously, that is the opposite of fragmenting, and fragmenting has been blamed as the cause of disunity and an excuse for Christendom. A few broadcasts ago, (March?) one of the GB members in his talk, implored the friends to "trust the Governing Body". I thought to myself, well why not? You've got to trust someone right? Of course, first and foremost we trust God, but because we trust God, we also trust that as long as we, as individuals, stick to Bible principles, he (Jehovah) will make sure we will be OK spiritually. On top of that, surely the GB know that trust has to be earned. You cannot trust someone if they have given you a reason not to in the past. I have not had such an experience to date. There are things I do not agree with, but they are not fundamental. I would like to see more transparency, but at least I have seen glimpses of improvement on that front. No we didn't, but as I explained, there was nowhere for them to gather. They were on their own. Stuck in their denomination, but usually they either fought against it, disagreed with it, or left it. By that, we judge they must have been the wheat. Who is to say that Jehovah ever stopped finding wheat among the denominations and gathering them together with the other wheat within the confines of a physically defined denomination? I would assume that once true worship was restored, (or maybe at some point during the restoration) that was the point at which the wheat started to be gathered together into a group .. and the Governing Body know that too. I will address your other point about the glass of water later....

That is a shame. A "people for God" or "ark of salvation" does have scriptural backing though. However, it's illogical to think that associating, on its own, would merit an automatic ticket to salvation. Surely they know that in the end each will render an account for themselves to God, individually? I don't think the WT has ever taught that salvation is secured if you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses and associating with the org. only. Otherwise they wouldn't have to keep reminding us constantly with how to keep ourselves in God's love. We would just get baptized and that would be it. Pretty much like a lot of the "Christian" religions I know. It doesn't in so many words but surely there are plenty of scriptural indications that this it does. And it follows a pattern from when God first chose a people for his name. It also stands to reason that it is necessary to be organized in order to preach effectively, to have united teachings, and to keep congregations clean. As far as I know Jehovah's Witnesses are the closest out of all the denominations to the original church established by Jesus. We don't need to make excuses like the above mentioned quote from the Christian website for why we do not keep unity and keep the congregations morally clean. I quote it again: " However, the early church was more diligent to identify and eradicate false doctrines than today's multi-denominational church. It was easier for the early church to discipline, or rid itself of those engaged in immoral activity. This could be because the early church was not as fragmented, or divided as the church of today". What an excuse.  In context Jesus was talking about a man who had been expelling demons in his name, but not following him. The Insight book page1029 vol 2 says: During this time the Law covenant was in force, by God’s will, and God through Jesus Christ had not yet inaugurated the new covenant and the beginning of the Christian congregation of called ones. Only from Pentecost of 33 C.E. onward, after Jesus by his sacrifice had brought about the removal of the Law, was it necessary for anyone serving in the name of Christ to associate with this congregation, the members of which were baptized into Christ. (Ac 2:38-42, 47; Ro 6:3) Then, instead of dealing with the fleshly nation of Israel as he had done until that time, God recognized the Christian congregation as his “holy nation.”—1Pe 2:9; 1Co 12:13. This is also mentioned in the quote I state in my post: "In other words, the end times church (the organization) will include those who profess belief in Christ but who are, in fact, children of disobedience. The Lord Jesus Christ foretold of this reality in His parable of the "wheat and the tares." You know that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the separation started happening after Russell and his associates began the restoration "movement". Although not perfect, (as you mentioned) fundamental truths from the Bible were re-introduced on a much larger scale than had ever been done before, since apostasy first infiltrated the 1st century Christian congregation. If we were to believe that, then it would lend support to the belief that an only true church would be established, and it would be in the last days. If not, then as the quote states, true and false Christians would be dispersed throughout all of Christendoms denominations. I see a problem with that though. Christendom's denominations are stuck in a rut of beliefs which were introduced during the said apostasy. Their members, (lets assume we are talking about wheat like members) although believing they are true to Christs teachings, are in fact believing the lie. Can God and Jesus accept falsehoods that have been promulgated throughout centuries and have smeared their names? Can they tolerate the evil that has been done in their names? Although Russell made some embarrassing mistakes, we did not stay with those. Well the central governing body is Christ himself, he said so. And he also established what was acceptable in a Christian congregation and what was not and had it recorded for us in the Hebrew scriptures. Really, having a central human governing body merely makes practical sense for us humans living on earth. Providing of course this central governing body adheres closely to the scriptures and Christ, having Christ as their head. It prevents the fragmentation that is spoken about in the quote, excusing the non upholding of Christ's standards. I cannot imagine how else this could be done. In fact I can see how it fails if there is no central governing body that clearly adheres to the scriptures and Christ, I can see it in Christendom, and their own quote (above) confirms this. We do not expect this human governing body (who are following Christ) to get everything right, but we do expect to see good results, not just in individuals but as an organization on the whole. We do not see these results in Christendom's denominations. I can give many examples. I am not denying there are good people among them that try to live by Bible standards, and conversely I do not deny that there are JWs who live a double life. But I do believe that Jehovah does have a people for his name, and that these people are not scattered among various denominations as wheat, but the wheat has been gathered and continues to be gathered into one worldwide congregation.

I just scrolled back through the thread to catch up on whether all the points in the original post were addressed. I don't really think they have been. On the point I just requoted, I only wanted to mention that it seems rather judgmental, and it does paint with a broad brush just as @HollyW already said, and it also seems to imply (as she said) a large part of the answer to your original question. In a potentially majority-Christian country such as the United States, you see the 1:400 ratio as a kind of "ideal" that implies (if God is not partial) that the entire world should ideally see something like a 1:400 ratio. That would be about 20,000,000 JWs spread more evenly across all the nations of the world. I point out the "judgmental" side of this approach, because all such speculation ends up being judgmental. Perhaps C.T.Russell was a little less so with the initial idea that all Christians would go to heaven but only 144,000 of them would rule as kings as Christ's bride, and these were the only ones who really counted in his book. In his day, he felt that many of the 144,000 had already been chosen over the past 1,800 years. Yet, he was still only really trying to address the small number of remaining restorationist "age-to-come" and "adventist" types who would typically be expected to come from a group of 20,000 to 50,000 persons still reeling from the Miller failure, but who were thus prepared by it to be receptive to Barbour's "midnight cry." The "midnight cry" occurred about midway between the failure of William Miller's 1843/1844 date and the "closing of the doors of heaven" to that small group, expected in 1878, then 1881. This much smaller number were the only ones he was trying to reach in the Watch Tower publications and preaching. Russell went to his death believing that it was only this small remnant of a few thousand that he was directly addressing. If any Christian failed to make it into that final opportunity to be among the Bride of Christ, he allowed that it was possible for them to still go to heaven as all other Christians of all denominations could have done. The rest of mankind would survive Armageddon's chaos into an ever-improving earth, under heaven's reign, along with the resurrection of billions who had died in the past. But back to the "judgmental" problem. Some JWs (on this forum, too) have given the idea that even very few JWs are true JWs. So perhaps the ratio only looks like 1:400 but is really ten times worse than that. This is judgmental. Some have allowed that people of "goodwill" in other religions might survive, but the best the Watchtower has done is tell us not to speculate about those persons. Questions of mental capacity, children, level of knowledge or to what extent persons have rejected the opportunity afforded them in this "generation" have come up, but are generally avoided in the publications. Also, Jesus said that in matters of judging others, we should look to our ourselves and find the "2-by-4" in our own eye before trying to take the speck out of another's eye. The reason your statement struck me as inappropriate (though common) is because one could argue that most of the years for those who followed the Watch Tower publications were marked by false prophecy, the Russellite cult, and a real emphasis on the Great Pyramid. There was a specific attraction based on exactly the things Jesus told us not to follow. (Such as those who would try to use expressions like "the time is at hand" to make people think they had a handle on the times and seasons.) So people might be just as correct (or just as judgmental) if they claimed that any Christian who followed Russell or Rutherford during the first half (or more) of this organization's existence were only following because they were Christians in name only, and their leaders were hypocrites. It’s been a while and I had already forgotten what this reply of mine was in answer to, so I had to scroll back as well. I understand what you are getting at. You are right, the original post was not addressed if you are looking at it from that angle. When I posted that question it was really on the assumption that JWs are the one and only true religion. In order to fairly asses that question in it's entirety it would be neccessary to establish first whether the Bible actually teaches that there is only one true religion. And more specifically, if it teaches that there is only one true “Christian” religion. I have noticed lately that there is a definitive trend among Christian religions that it’s not the religion that matters, but it’s the individual. I suppose people have recognized that organized religion (in this post I will assume we are talking about Christian religions only) has failed as a whole. People have become more and more aware that the churches, its parishioners and its leaders have failed to live up to their name. I quote a thought from a Christian website which summarizes this “problem” : “In his letters to the first century church, the Apostle Paul commended each for excelling in the graces of God. Specifically, these first century churches were known for their faith, love, zeal, giving, knowledge, and intolerance for sin, as well as false doctrines. The first century church was united in spirit. Consequently, they were a conduit for the power of God as manifested in the miraculous signs and wonders performed through the apostles and for the apostles, in response to the prayers of the saints. The gospel of grace spread like wildfire, at tremendous cost to the early followers of Christ. The first century church was beset with persecution, torture, and martyrdom. In spite of this, Christian churches were being established throughout the Mediterranean region, Asia Minor, and into Europe. Today's world is characterized by the last days events foretold by the Lord Jesus Christ in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Matthew's Gospel. Specifically, we are hearing of the "wars and rumors of wars," earthquakes, famines, and pestilences of which our Lord warned. It was foretold of the church in these last days, that (among many other things): The "love of many" would "grow cold." Many in the church would be "lovers of self" rather than lovers of God. Many in the faith would be "offended." The church would "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof." Last day Christians would have "itching" ears, would not "endure sound doctrine" and would have "many teachers." In other words, the end times church (the organization) will include those who profess belief in Christ but who are, in fact, children of disobedience. The Lord Jesus Christ foretold of this reality in His parable of the "wheat and the tares." Certainly, the early church had its problems, just as the church today. However, the early church was more diligent to identify and eradicate false doctrines than today's multi-denominational church. It was easier for the early church to discipline, or rid itself of those engaged in immoral activity. This could be because the early church was not as fragmented, or divided as the church of today. It is important to remember that, regardless of the times in which we live, every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of God. Every true believer is God's "building." While unity of the spirit in the local church is to be desired, Christ's Church (the organism) is not a visible building. There is an unseen church, comprised of Christ's followers, who remain true to the teachings of Christ and to the leading of His Holy Spirit. The unseen or invisible church excels in the graces of God, just as the early church did, despite the physical location of its members. Christ's Church is not a building with programs. Christ's church is comprised of those who have a vibrant relationship with our risen Lord and Savior....... Christ's church remains alive and well". So perhaps we should explore those ideas first? What are your thoughts on this?

This is what the Wikipedia article says: " The trunk itself is estimated to be only a few hundred years old, but the plant has survived for much longer due to a process known as layering (when a branch comes in contact with the ground, it sprouts a new root), or vegetative cloning (when the trunk dies but the root system is still alive, it may sprout a new trunk)". So in view of that, it's a bit misleading to say the tree itself is that old, but evidently the root system survived the flood and was able to sprout, probably repeating the process many times throughout several millennia...

Your posts are pretty much off topic and it seems you are going on a rant, but I couldn't help noticing the above statement. Well that was the Pharisees wasn't it? We would not expect them to understand what Jesus meant would we? On the other hand Jesus explained to his true disciples exactly what he meant: John 17: 20 -23 "“I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one,+ just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you,+ that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.+ 23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one,* so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me". Surely you would not suggest the disciples were God and/or Jesus would you? Rather it is obvious that Jesus was referring to the complete agreement that exists between him and his father and would also exist between them and his followers. In fact if you read further on in John 10: 34-36 Jesus shows that he rejected their (the pharisees) understanding (that he was saying he is God) and then 10:37-38 it is quite clear Jesus was saying he is God's son and that he is doing the works of his Father: "Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?+ 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me".

Know the difference between counterfeit Christians and true Christians. It's not a new teaching. The scriptures warn about this and give clear identifying marks to help distinguish the two.

You know everything! I have to beware ?