Jump to content

Cos

JW's mistaken claim...

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Cos -
Space Merchant -
253
7163

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

I was speaking with a Jehovah’s Witnesses who mistakenly alleges that at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century AD is when belief in Christ’s Deity originated.

 

Folks, the facts are these, the NT explicitly uses the Greek term theos (“God”) in reference to Jesus Christ. Further, there was a consistent application of theos to Jesus Christ long before the 4th century AD!

 

Christian authors such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus all spoke of Christ as “God.”

 

These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ did not originate in the fourth century as JW’s mistakenly claim. 

 

 What happened at Nicaea and after is a continuation of what these early Christians taught on the matter with focused emphasis on terminology and explanatory nuance to safeguard this truth from the ravages of Arianism, which, as history shows, actually was a fourth century invention! <><

Share this post


Link to post

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 12:36 PM, Nana Fofana said:

I don't know why they say that,

Ms Fofana,

 

Thank you for your reply, and I’m sorry that it has taken me a long period to reply, many things have, and still do, occupy my time, but your reply was a “must respond to” which I marked in my calendar.

 

Your language is somewhat strange you use “izz” instead of “is” a few times, please explain why? You say also that in your many years of “churchgoing” you never heard anyone claim that “Jesus IS God”. Can I ask which church you attended during that time?

 

Now, the Jehovah’s Witness I spoke to said that the Trinity began to be taught (invented) in the fourth century. Try this simple test, ask one of your JW friends when they say that the Trinity “began”.

 

I noticed the Watchtower broacher on the Trinity was brought up. It is interesting that in that broacher on page seven the Watchtower conveys the idea that "the Trinity was unknown throughout biblical times and several centuries thereafter." (Emphasis mine). That statement implies a fourth century ‘invention” and that statement is incorrect! In fact many things in that Watchtower broacher are incorrect, which, I believe, explains why the Watchtower pulled it from circulation. <><

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 12:56 PM, Nana Fofana said:

if I imagine someone  saying  "Jesus is God", I imagine them sounding like a TV evangelist, if you know what I mean. 

Ms Fofana,

 

Once again thank you for your response and for sharing a little of your background. I know what you mean about TV evangelists sometimes the way they speak can seem a little off-putting, but in general that does not mean that what they say is wrong, for its not.

 

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 12:56 PM, Nana Fofana said:

"the son is the father'.  That sounded bizarre to me when I first heard it and it has gone on sounding bizarre to me  

 

Can I just say that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father! I looked up the beliefs of the United Church of Christ head office at

    Hello guest!
, and they nowhere claim to believe that “the son is the father”. I don’t know where you got this Oneness idea from, which is not the Trinity at all.

 

You mention what JW’s believe, but what you give under “definition” is not a clear representation of the Trinity, sorry. And you then go on to quote, questionably, from certain secular source.

 

The first from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which, in your quote gives the impression that the Trinity developed some 300 years after the apostles; this is NOT the case as I have stated before. Interestingly left out of this quote is a lot of information which is contrary to the innuendo of your quote, for example the Encyclopedia Britannica has, Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126 emphasis mine)

 

You know, I wonder if you actually have read the whole article from the Encyclopedia Britannica or if you just read the misleading quotes given in Watchtower publications/website?

 

Your next quote comes from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and again the quote is very misleading. The article your quote from in this Encyclopedia concludes “it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity Vol. 14, p299-300).

 

Not only does your selective quoting not give the full picture, it does not even investigate the primary objectiveness of the article from where the quote comes.

 

Next is the quote from The Encyclopedia Americana, this quote of yours is again misleading and projects the false impression that early Christian teaching was not Trinitarian. The Encyclopedia Americana, says under the article “Trinity Doctrine” Vol. 27, page 67, “In the New Testament it is evident that the doctrine of a trinity in the divine nature is clearly and copiously taught”.

 

Next the quote from Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel. When read in context, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel doesn't say that the Christian trinity is borrowed from either the Platonic or pagan trinities. All that the dictionary says it that Plato borrowed his trinity from the pagans. The dictionary suggests, which clearly indicates that it is not sure, ("appears to be" means not certain) that there is a connection between the Christian trinity and the "Platonic trinity". In other words, the dictionary is guessing!

 

And lastly you quote from John McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible; but your quote fails to mention that in the very same article it states, "He (Jesus) knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, page 899).

 

It is very deceptive to quote articles out of context and then to portray a false innuendo by those misquotes.

 

The fact that the early church spoke of the Tri-unity of God long before the fourth century shows that you JWs are wrong in your claims; and as history shows it was Arianism which was developed in the fourth century, and that Arianism was totally unknown prior to this date.

 

We have Christian writers before the fourth century, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus who all spoke of Christ as God and of the Trinity. These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ and the Trinity did not originate in the fourth century as you JW’s mistakenly claim. Here are some examples of this fact:

 

Justin Martyr 100 AD – 165 AD “…you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order TO PROVE that Christ is called BOTH GOD AND LORD OF HOSTS…” ( Dialogue with Trypho, Chpeter 36 emphasis added).

 

Hippolytus 170 AD – 235 AD writes “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, WHO, BEING GOD, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8 emphasis added)

 

I could easily call up many more examples from the early church, all before the fourth century, that refute the JW claim, but because a lot of the above is taken up with showing you how the quotes you cite are deceptive in their implied innuendo, this response has already turned out quite long. The writings of the early church demonstrate clearly that Arianism (which is similar to the JW belief system) was invented in the fourth century. <><

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Cos said:

You know, I wonder if you actually have read the whole article from the Encyclopedia Britannica or if you just read the misleading quotes given in Watchtower publications/website?

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 

 

13 hours ago, Cos said:

It is very deceptive to quote articles out of context and then to portray a false innuendo by those misquotes.

Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 6:56 AM, Shiwiii said:

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 

 

Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

Hi Shiwiii,

 

Yes I believe so. The booklet became an embarrassment to the JWs because of all the false and misleading quotes. <><

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

I agree with this part!

Ms Fofana,

 

Sadly your idea of Jesus is not only wrong it is also a fourth century invention. <><

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/25/2017 at 12:36 AM, Nana Fofana said:

I don't know why they say that, unless you/they mean by "Christ's Deity", that "Jesus IZZ God!", which as far as I'm concerned, arose about 15 years ago, completely out of the blue, & makes no sense , and is bizarre.  My husband pays no attention to faith matters now, but like me, grew up attending 'nice' protestant churches,

I will not forget my first Bible student in the late 1970's - my grandmother who had always attended 'nice' baptist churches. She was much troubled that I was in a religion that didn't believe in the Trinity. I reviewed the doctrine and she said that she had never believed that - all she had meant was that there was a Father and a Son and a holy spirit. She had never imagined that they were the same.

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 12/6/2017 at 4:48 AM, Cos said:

Can I just say that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father! I looked up the beliefs of the United Church of Christ head office at

    Hello guest!
, and they nowhere claim to believe that “the son is the father”. I don’t know where you got this Oneness idea from.

Well, she might have gotten it from the signs one routinely sees everywhere: "Jesus is God!"

Share this post


Link to post

John 1:1

       In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.      KJV

    Hello guest!
 In the beginning was the Word,
    Hello guest!
 and the Word was with God,
    Hello guest!
 and the Word was a god.
    Hello guest!
 NWT from JWorg

Why sending sad :(  emoticons ?

:)) be happy, translators and transcribers and copyist with bible scholars and church fathers (past and present) have problems with wording 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:37 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

 

Well, she might have gotten it from the signs one routinely sees everywhere: "Jesus is God!"

Mr Harley,

 

Even that guess on your part would constitute as a poor assumption. <><

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:38 AM, Nana Fofana said:

 

Ms Fofana,

 

Sorry for the lateness of this response, so many things occupy my attention of late.

 

Nana:

It is very deceptive, imo, to refer to "quoting articles out of context", as if the customary and accepted practice is not to quote anything unless 'context'   -maybe the whole article?, or maybe the whole book?, or maybe everything the author ever wrote, along with his life history, including the context of the times in which he operated?-   is included,  and then to portray a false innuendo by calling them "misquotes." 

 

Of course it depends on which side you are on whether you agree on the use of any quote, but for me if the quote is intentionally made so that it appears to say one thing when really it is saying another that then constitutes as deception, and that is not a trait of real Christianity, no matter how you try to excuse it, only false religion would stoop to that leave...sorry. Visit any good library and you will see what I mean for yourself!

 

 I didn't hear  what you say is "Oneness idea" at the UCC, and that's what I was trying to say all along!

 

Wherever you get this idea from that Jesus is the Father it is incorrect and it is not the Trinity. The Father is a person, the Son is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a person who exist as One (Matt. 28:19) that, put simply, is the Trinity. Jesus being God does not mean that Jesus is the Father, any who claim this are just as wrong as the JWs claims about Him.

 

Here is offered some New Testament basis that the trinity concept is unscriptural.-

 

You refer to Matt. 16:13-16 where Jesus is confessed to be the Son of God by Peter. Jesus’ sonship is also confessed by the disciples in Matthew 14: 33, it was also a part of Caiaphas’s question to Jesus at his trial (Matt 26: 63), and the sonship of Jesus is also the focus of a round of taunts lobbed at him while nailed to the cross (Matt. 27: 39– 43). These people all knew what being the Son of God meant!

 

Jesus is the Son of God, but what that means must be understood in the way the ancients viewed the term, not read with a modern “understand” back into the Scriptures.

 

Jesus is called "the Son of God" in a non-literal sense, since He was not procreated. In fact Christians claim that Jesus, according to the NT and the way those around him understood the term that it meant that Jesus possess the nature of God fully and completely (see for example Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3).

 

When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, and asked Him two questions (mentioned together in Matt and Mark, but stated as proposed separately by Luke. “Are you the Christ?” (Luke 22:67) and “Are you then the Son of God? (Luke 22:70). And it was the affirmative answer of Jesus to the last of these questions, which were grounds for condemnation.

 

Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it.

 

He therefore affirmed under oath, at His trial before the council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the phrase was meant, and for this He was condemned to death.

 

According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honour to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7). This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just.  

 

So when we read the account in the Bible, the Jews brought two charges against Jesus, one was treason against Caesar, by making Himself a King.  To this charge Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you a king?” (John 18:37). Jesus answered in the affirmative, but so that they would not convict Him of a crime of which He was not guilty, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted Him of the charge (John 18:38).  

 

In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation.

 

If Jesus was not entitled to divine honour, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it. To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death. 

 

Yes Jesus is the Son of God. That is, true God from true God, Amen. <><

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 7:06 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

John 1:1

       In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.      KJV

    Hello guest!
 In the beginning was the Word,
    Hello guest!
 and the Word was with God,
    Hello guest!
 and the Word was a god.
    Hello guest!
 NWT from JWorg

Mr Sostar,

 

And it can easily be shown that the NWT is the incorrect rendering. <><

Share this post


Link to post

In a systematic biblical examination on the Deity of the Lord Jesus students of the Bible look at three major contributing factors;

1.    Jesus’ names and titles which establish that He is God.

2.    Jesus’ attributes (the things that only God can do) validate He is God.

3.    Jesus’ abilities (the things that Jesus has done) confirm He is God.

 

Concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ, we have in the Bible's direct statements that he is God. This is what JWs twist and say is not found in the Bible.

 

Jesus’ names and titles. This is an important and interesting study (recommended for all) about the names and titles that were given to Jesus, for example, in Matthew 1:21 it says that His name shall be called Yehoshua (Hebrew for Jesus), which means “Yahweh is salvation.”

 

Some of you will read that and say, in a nice way, “Well wait a minute. You could call somebody “Jesus” today (as some were named in Biblical times) and it is just a testimony to the fact that Yahweh (Jehovah) will save. It’s not saying that Jesus is Yahweh.”

 

Well only when on its own while ignoring the rest of the verse would this line of reasoning be valid, but we have a multitude of examples that show that the opposite is the case. So instead please read carefully what the verse actually says, note the specific personal pronouns that all refer to the one to be born.

 

“She will give birth to a son, and you are to NAME HIM Jesus, for HE (Greek αὐτὸς) will save HIS people from their sins” (Matt 1:21 NWT emphasis mine)

 

We note here that the word  αὐτὸς is emphatic; and rightly so “For it is He that (he is the one who) shall save his people from their sins.”

 

In this case the one to be born is being identified by His name. Who, in the eternal purpose He is, really and absolutely, in Himself; the very substance of His being, God the Saviour – God who saves, Immanuel (Matt 1:23).

 

I have been very, very brief here, however I do hope to stimulate further interest. <><

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cos said:

further interest.

I have no specific attitude about who is Father and who is Son, and who is Holy Spirit/Ghost. Even/ although i was ex-JW i am open to different explanation. Bible verses gives sometimes opposite ideas on same subject.  

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Mr. Sostar,

 

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 4:11 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible verses gives sometimes opposite ideas on same subject.  

The “opposite ideas” is, in most cases, the result of when a person approaches the Bible verses with some pre-conceived thought.

I need to ask, what made you leave the Watchtower? <><

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Cos said:

with some pre-conceived thought.

... that must not always be the case. People belongings to something are strong force that make them to stick to that what is familiar to them. And because such predestined opinion, standpoint, belif,  are not willing to hear nothing different/opposite. 

I the beginning of WT, Russell and similar people was been able to skip that obstacle, they searching for something "better". Better or not it is for other discussion. They were "reformators". And that is good to the some point. But as we see, all are fall in similar or same trap. They became dogmatic and "force" others to accept same attitude. They force members to accept and believe to dogmatic explanations so far as that same main church body, aka GB in the WT case, not decided to change "the dogma", particular teaching. And then members, who must be followers, are called to reject "preconceived thought" aka belief and to accept new "preconceived thought" aka "new light" as god's revelation to GB aka mediator between god and JW people.  

Some Catholic, Protestants, Muslim etc embraced JWorg teachings, some not. Were those persons who refused JW explanation "preconceived" ?? Some JW explanation have better logic than Catholic explanation, but that not must give reason/prove how this "new" JW explanation is truth and will stay truth forever. We, who was in JW religion for longer time was been able to compared "evolution" (in whatever direction, good or bad) of WT JWorg  teological thoughts and so much wandering. And where they, WT, are now? In the era of free mass communication, people are able to see how this WT Company are not different than some other company, religious, political or marketing company. 

So, how we should, need to approach to JW religion, to Catholic religion... to Bible?? With how much open mind? With how much preconceived, sceptic or open approach?   We have good chance to be deceived or to deceive ourselves by own reasoning. In any way we are losers, of some kind :)))  

Did old JW was "losers" in some way, despite the fact how they are/was the only one true religion, according to WT JWorg western civilization preconceived thought and belief? If that is so, no matter of changes that later came on Jew scene, are all that Jew nation was not now in JHVH disfavor, according to JWorg? So why all that effort of old Jew and century of beliefs how they are god's chosen nation, when they are not, according to JW org?  

What if the same thing is also happens with JWorg? Despite the strong self conviction, belief, prejudice of JW clergy and members how they alone are the only true religion? God choose old Jew and rejected them, again according to Christian doctrine, and why would not this same JHVH repeat again the same pattern, choose WT JWorg and after some time reject them? Are JWorg position is so strong and that will not happen to them? What if that already happened? 

I found how something is wrong with WT and not want to be part of it. I am not "reformator" :)))   

Share this post


Link to post

1. To Society Watch Tower, Watchtower and corporations

2. To Jehovah's Witnesses and all assemblies

3. To all whom this concern

 

Declaration on termination of membership to a religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses

 

            I was baptized in 1977 at the age of 17, then a minor. But, in good faith I answered the following two questions just before baptism, which is symbolized my dedication to God in terms of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses religion.

At that time (before the change of June 1 1985) questions have read as follows;

A)    Have you repented of your sins and converted, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?

B)     On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?

 

            Since I have over decades closely followed the changes in various aspects of activity of this religion, I noticed some frequent collisions (1 John 4:1; 1 Th 5:21). It is visible in: a) the content of the various interpretations; b) in the theory and practice of action in everyday life issues. Overview of many historical aspects of the spiritual heritage, which the organization has, since its inception in the 19th century, left to its members-followers, and wants to cover it up, revise and incorrect display, is astounding. Who wants to drink a water from a cup in which there is a single drop of dangerous substances?

            The purpose of my statement is not to explain doctrine and practices of society and the board of directors, who are disturbed my conscience and reasoning within the love, faith, knowledge and understanding that I feel and I have to God and Jesus Christ and to the people, so I will taxatively single out only a few of them (Rom 14:4). These are obvious example, on the one hand, theological acrobatics from the main church body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and on the other hand, their dishonesty and practice in which one they are learns, and other they are works;

1) Confusing conceptions about their own identity (Who shared spiritual food? One servant, all 144 000, a composite body or the governing body ...,)

2) Pragmatism in changing dogmatic interpretations before the change was "firmly biblical established", such as a series of explanations about the "generation" ...,

3) Speculation about the meaning of biblical statements and how they should be understood. More than once the revised interpretation were in style of YES-NO-YES-NO; then this year's "changed approach to the interpretation of reports from the Word of God" ...,

4) Switching of responsibility from the governing body and their representatives on the ordinary believers in respect of the decisions and attitudes that members should be carried out, when it becomes apparent that they were endangered spiritually, mentally and literally health of fellow believers  (eg, multiple expectations of Armageddon, Malawi and Mexico of the 1970s, questions about blood, juvenile members / Bulgaria /, neutrality ...,)

5) Co-operation and association with political organizations such as the UN and the OSCE.

6) Increasingly open calls for financial donations and contributions to the funds of the corporation.

7) Careless and unkind treatment of victims of pedophilia within the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses

 

            Regardless of how, as collective or personal, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses will treat me after this letter of resignation, considering the worldwide-known practice of ignoring and avoiding (shunning) that Jehovah's Witnesses apply to all who are outside of their religion ("worldly" people, dissociated and disfellowshipped) - I with fully conscious and reason declare still this; My relationship with the people / persons in the Jehovah's Witness religion and those who are not, is based on the words of Jesus; "Love your neighbor as yourself"; "Love those who hate you"; "Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them."

 

I expecting from you, that any kind of information which is stored anywhere, in connection with me and has my full name, such as personal files, or any other files you immediately destroy!

 

 

Zagreb, July 27/2015                                          Srećko Šoštar -------------

                                   Verified by notary public

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Sostar,

 

I can see from what you say that you have some strong convictions, thank you for sharing them.

 

You say that some “Catholic, Protestants, Muslim etc embraced JW teachings”, please give examples. I know Muslim’s agree with some of the JW beliefs, but that is only because it follows their own preconceived view.

 

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 Some JW explanation have better logic than Catholic explanation, 

 

I’m not a Roman Catholic so I don’t know to which “explanation” you refer, but from the many discussions I have had with JWs, I know that a lot of the JW “logic” is not biblical.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

...to Bible?? With how much open mind? With how much preconceived, sceptic or open approach?   We have good chance to be deceived or to deceive ourselves by own reasoning. In any way we are losers, of some kind :)))  

 

I read this and then felt sorry for you because of what you say. I think you leaving the Watchtower religion has soured you to the Scriptures. I do think that a clear examination of our mental behaviors would help us when we approach the Scriptures but your comments show a clear disillusion in them. <><

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Cos said:

You say that some “Catholic, Protestants, Muslim etc embraced JW teachings”, please give examples.

I thought on people who changed their faith/beliefs, leave parents religion and came to be JW. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Cos said:

I’m not a Roman Catholic so I don’t know to which “explanation” you refer, but from the many discussions I have had with JWs, I know that a lot of the JW “logic” is not biblical.

My full quote: "Some JW explanation have better logic than Catholic explanation, but that not must give reason/prove how this "new" JW explanation is truth and will stay truth forever."

So, we agree in looking on issue.

Some examples of not logical or not biblical would be; celibat, forgiving of sins by priest, using idols in worshiping god, baptism of babies, pope as leader and one who is inerrable.  

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 1:57 AM, Cos said:

“She will give birth to a son, and you are to NAME HIM Jesus, for HE (Greek αὐτὸς) will save HIS people from their sins” (Matt 1:21 NWT emphasis mine)

John 6:37–40

All those whom the FATHER gives ME will come to ME,

and I will never drive away the one who comes to ME;

38 for I have come down from heaven to do, NOT MY own will,

but the will of HIM who sent ME.

39 This is the will of HIM who sent ME,

that I should lose none out of all those whom HE has given ME,

but that I should resurrect them on the last day.

40 For this is the will of MY FATHER,

that everyone who recognizes the SON and exercises FAITH in HIM

should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”

Share this post


Link to post

Bible contents various verses and description about some heavenly persons. @DeeDee 

Terminology that are used in naming person can assure us how Bible speaks only about one person, BUT sometimes the same names, titles are used for somebody else.

But this conclusion in my second sentence above can be true or error - IF reader (believer) trusts in one of various concepts, explanations, teachings on issue - Who is God?

Somebody believes in three persons who are in one person. Somebody in three persons who are separate but acting as one person. Somebody believes, as JW, in two persons and crude (natural,raw)force.

In various WT explanation on various bible verses, as in example of Isaiah chapters  9, 44, 48 (Mighty God, Everlasting Father, //first and last//) they said how this verses describing Jesus Christ the Son of God JHVH.  AND  about Revelation (Alpha and Omega- first and last) they said how AO is JHVH, despite fact how book of Revelation is about Jesus and his second coming.

Rev 1  "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Rev 1 "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

Rev 21  Then He said to me, "It is done I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. (go to Isaiah again)

Rev 22 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Old testament and New Testament contents same attributes, names, titles for JHVH and Son ( in concept of JW religion as two different, separate persons with different even opposite attributes)

ABOUT John 6 and  Father - Son description.  What if Jesus in his explanation using only possibility that he can used in/for describing to humans (we "stupid" humans with our own similar or different limited and conceptual prejudices about unknown) about himself. The concept of Father and son is something what is close to humans experience, everyday life, cognitive and intellectual acceptance and more of all religious acceptance. Because it is "normal" that God is immortal and can not dye, but Jesus will die, so he can not be God. Only, just god (small g) or in the best and only option he can be "The Son of God". Which is also blasphemy according to Jew, as we read in Bible, because that can mean how God came from heaven and have wife, and with his wife he have son. And this son became Son of God. See, you have in both examples very questionable issue. With very hard explanation on issue. AS Jew they know about angels came in time of Noah and how their, angels children's also can and was called as "god's sons and daughters", because angels also have title/name "gods".
See how was difficult for Jew to accept Jesus as SON OF GOD?! HOW more blasphemy would be if Jesus represent himself as GOD himself and their FATHER as he is (or he is not that) in the book of Isaiah (according to WT, words in Isaiah are about Jesus, he is Everlasting Father and as i recall in WT book Prince of peace, WT called JHVH as grandfather of humankind)

When old  Jew read this particular verses in Isaiah about "Everlasting Father and Mighty God" and others titles... on whom they think that HE is??? -  god Jesus or god JHVH ?? 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 in the book of Isaiah (according to WT, words in Isaiah are about Jesus, he is Everlasting Father and as i recall in WT book Prince of peace,

The tittles in Isaiah 9:6 are also used by the Roman Catholic religion to refer to Jesus, so it is not only a WT book that interprets these words as referring to Jesus:

"For a child has been born to us,

A son has been given to us;

And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.

His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

The tittles in Isaiah 9:6 are also used by the Roman Catholic religion to refer to Jesus, so it is not only a WT book that interprets these words as referring to Jesus:

Thanks for information. But Catholic church is not "only true religion" and their interpretation on Bible are not guided by JHVH :)))))))

But what if both religion are in wrong about Isaiah?

JW members can not take for granted any of Catholic teachings. Because they are part of Babylon according to WT.

On other hand JW members can not be 100% sure in WT explanation also because WT history prove how their interpreting on Bible goes to extremes too.  For example. More than 50 years FDS assured members (domestic) how Jesus choose and appointed them in 1919. But they are not, after new "clarification" :)))) So can we trust GB? They teaching cross and Christmas as Bible truth for decades, but not any more. How can such "representative of god" be trustfull? They teached  "1914 generation" for decades as "bible based truth" but WHERE is this TRUTH today? 

:)))) Do not put your trust in earthly man! Even if he has appointed by god! :))

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

everlasting father" instead of Adam for any of Adam's offspring who will "present his life.."  Isaiah  53

Yea, Adam is quilty as charged :)))

Isaiah 53: 1

"Who has believed our message
    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

On first part of this question we can tell very confidently -- many are believers. (in various messages, hehe)

On second ... that is not easy one :))

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thanks for information. But Catholic church is not "only true religion" and their interpretation on Bible are not guided by JHVH :)))))))

From my personal observations, the Catholic church is NOT the TRUE religion. I was born into it, but am now a JW and am happy to see the truth for myself as I am studying the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

Isaiah 9:6...:

"For a child has been born to us,

A SON has been given to us;

And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.

There are tons of references in Jesus' prayer (John 17) where Jesus makes clear that he (Jesus) is NOT the "FATHER."

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:
1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

(Jesus) is NOT the "FATHER."

despite Isaiah, the true prophet of JHVH, claim???

What Scriptural claim are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

On other hand JW members can not be 100% sure in WT explanation also because WT history prove how their interpreting on Bible goes to extremes too. 

Yes, the interpretations change as Jehovah chooses to reveal information to us "young children."

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

On other hand JW members can not be 100% sure in WT explanation

...But we (JW's) completely "TRUST in JEHOVAH"...that he will reveal things as we are in need of or ready to learn them. You do not teach a five-year-old child in the same way you would teach a sixteen-year-old. Obviously, Jehovah will not reveal deeper truths until he has decided that it is "the proper time" for ALL of us to know that "explanation." Proverbs 3:5; Matthew 24:45

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

What Scriptural claim are you referring to?

Is 9:6  For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given,
    and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

And he will be called...Everlasting Father...

Adam is the first physical father of all who were born after him. So we have "Life" but also "Death" because of Adam. But now because of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus' life, we will be able to have "Everlasting LIFE" with "NO death." In that respect, Jesus could be referred to as our "Everlasting Father" (in that he will never die again) who gave us "Everlasting LIFE."

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

You do not teach a five-year-old child in the same way you would teach a sixteen-year-old.

yes you are right. But 5 year old and 16 year old KNOW who is his /her  FATHER.

Mother and Father not need to wait older age of child to explain who is his Father. They teach him that from first days. And this parents not calling someone else as his Father too, as father to own children. Some other is father for his children and can not be father to child from first parents, only by adoption :))

Well, ... why Isaiah calls (God's Son,Jesus) as Everlasting Father when Jesus teaching apostles that Father is someone else?  Who the children of Jesus are? 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

Adam is the first physical father of all who were born after him. So we have "Life" but also "Death" because of Adam. But now because of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus' life, we will be able to have "Everlasting LIFE" with "NO death." In that respect, Jesus could be referred to as our "Everlasting Father" (in that he will never die again) who gave us "Everlasting LIFE."

See the post above...

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What Lord? Lord Jesus? or Lord JHVH?

They are both referred to as "Lord" by religions.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

G.F. Handel And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed

What Lord? Lord Jesus? or Lord JHVH?

Christendom often is referring to Jesus when saying "Lord."

But many of them also believe that Jesus IS "JHVH."

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

In that respect, Jesus could be referred to as our "Everlasting Father" (in that he will never die again) who gave us "Everlasting LIFE."

Fine! Then JHVH are not father any more. (from 33 CE officially ) Because Jesus adopted humans from JHVH by means of his death. Jesus became spiritual father to humans. Then it would be not appropriate, clear, right for christians, to talking about JHVH as Father any more, because as you explained, Jesus is Everlasting Father who giving everlasting life to humans.

Perhaps this deeper truth will be new light in the next issue of WT study magazine (simplified edition of course :))) ).

Share this post


Link to post

I am having trouble with the computer....

No, Jehovah IS the FATHER...the HEAVENLY FATHER...the CREATOR of ALL things. Without Jehovah, there IS NO LIFE...not for us and not for JESUS. Jehovah is OUR FATHER AND JESUS' FATHER.

I said:

57 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:
  1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

In that respect, Jesus could be referred to as our "Everlasting Father" (in that he will never die again) who gave us "Everlasting LIFE."

It is true that Jesus will NEVER DIE...so he is "EVERLASTING."

It is also true that without Jesus' ransom sacrifice, we would NEVER have  "EVERLASTING LIFE."

So in that respect, by Jesus' sacrifice we will ALSO have EVERLASTING LIFE.

But without Jehovah GIVING us the GIFT of LIFE to begin with, there would be NO Jesus...There would be NO Death...because there would be NO LIFE...

Does that explain it better?

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the Scripture that explains what am saying in my last post:

Colossians 1:13-16

13 He [Jehovah] rescued us from the authority of the darkness [Death] and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son [Jesus], 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God [Jehovah], [Jesus is] the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him [Jesus] all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him [Jesus] and for him [Jesus].

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:
  18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

When old  Jew read this particular verses in Isaiah about "Everlasting Father and Mighty God" and others titles... on whom they think that HE is??? -  god Jesus or god JHVH ?? 

 

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Is 9:6  For to us a CHILD is born,
    to us a SON is given,
    and the government will be on HIS shoulders.
And HE will be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

Messiah:  In the Hebrew Bible, the Messiah was the an anointed king who will lead the Jews back to the land of Israel and establish justice in the world.

The Jews were expecting the Messiah to come because of the ancient writings (see Isa. 9:6 above).

So it would seem likely that the Jews would think those titles belong to the Messiah and not Jehovah God.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

 

Messiah:  In the Hebrew Bible, the Messiah was the an anointed king who will lead the Jews back to the land of Israel and establish justice in the world.

The Jews were expecting the Messiah to come because of the ancient writings (see Isa. 9:6 above).

So it would seem likely that the Jews would think those titles belong to the Messiah and not Jehovah God.

 

Folks

 

Isaiah 9:6 is a prophetic description of Christ. The phrase “his name” in Isaiah 9:6 is a Hebrew idiom, and mean much more than a name that the child actually bears, it signifies that they are appellatives or descriptive designations of His person and work.

 

Wonderful Counsellor.

Mighty God.

Eternal Father.

Prince of Peace.

 

Allow me to make one point; Isaiah 9:6 is not saying that Jesus is the Father.

 

The designation “Eternal Father”” (“Everlasting Father” in some Bible versions) means “Father of eternity”. The word ‘Father’ carries the meaning of “possessor”; possessor of eternity.

 

This is in complete accordance with Hebrew custom, where he who possesses a thing is called the “father” of it. For example father of strength means “strong”; the father of knowledge means “intelligent”’; the father of compassion means “compassionate”; and the father of goodness means “good”.

 

So according to common usage, the phrase “Father of eternity” (Isa. 9:6) would mean eternal. Bible scholar John A. Martin thus concludes that the phrase “Eternal Father” is simply “an idiom used to describe the Messiah’s relationship to time” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary). <><

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Cos said:

Bible scholar John A. Martin thus concludes that the phrase “Eternal Father” is simply “an idiom used to describe the Messiah’s relationship to time”

 

23 hours ago, DeeDee said:

Jesus could be referred to as our "Everlasting Father" (in that he will never die again)

Thank you, Cos, for the reference information...That is the point that I was trying to make earlier: Jesus is "Eternal" and will live for eternity and will not die.

Another point to note is that the use of the word "Father" in Isaiah 9:6...(see quote below):

16 hours ago, Cos said:

is not saying that Jesus is the Father.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

 

Thank you, Cos, for the reference information...That is the point that I was trying to make earlier. Jesus is "Eternal" and will live for eternity and will not die. Also, that the use of the word "Father" here in Isaiah:

 

Ms DeeDee (I presume you are Ms)

 

Even though Jesus is not the Father, nonetheless, He is God, just as the Father is God. <><

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, DeeDee said:

Colossians 1:13-16

13 He [Jehovah] rescued us from the authority of the darkness [Death] and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son [Jesus], 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God [Jehovah], [Jesus is] the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him [Jesus] all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him [Jesus] and for him [Jesus].

 

10 minutes ago, Cos said:

Even though Jesus is not the Father, nonetheless, He is God, just as the Father is God. <><

 15 He [Jesus] is the IMAGE of the invisible God [Jehovah]...

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

 

 15 He [Jesus] is the IMAGE of the invisible God [Jehovah]...

Ms DeeDee,

  

Let me first of all say that the expression “image of” entails identity of nature and essence.

 

The Greek word eilon (“image”) according to Vines Expository Dictionary,  “involves the two ideas of representation and manifestation” (see also Vincent, Word Studies in the N.T). “Image” does not suggest a mere likeness to God or a paradigm of His person, but a real manifestation of true Deity in body form.

 

I’d like to show you, from the scriptures, how this word eikon can be used to convey the reality; turn to Hebrews 10:1, here we see the  “shadow” (or picture) and how it is contrasted with “the very image” (eikon), which is the reality of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. I hope this helps you to understand, if not let me know and I will expound on this further. <><

Share this post


Link to post

Cos,

Would the expression, "Like Father, Like Son" be in line with what you are explaining?

...as in when a Son has a similar "nature and essence" to his Father?

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

Cos,

Would the expression, "Like Father, Like Son" be in line with what you are explaining?

...as in when a Son has a similar "nature and essence" to his Father?

 

Ms DeeDee,

 

What has to be understood is that even thought Jesus by nature is God, He, however, is not the Father. <><

Share this post


Link to post

Arians/Unitarians such as JWs claim that Jesus is the first (in chronological sequence) to be born? And they site for support Colossians 1:15, claiming that the Son is a member of creation. The Watchtower also add the word “other” to the passage in their bible version to give that impression.

 

Guys, if the reference to "firstborn" in Scripture primarily means being the first to have been given life, then that title could never be lost because it would refer to a factual event, the first birth.

 

Further, the title could never be applied to someone that was not truly the first in sequence.

 

But the Bible shows that the title of "firstborn" can be removed or gained independently of whether a person is the first one to be born. 

 

1 Chronicles 5:1-2 shows that Reuben was the first one born to Isaac and yet he lost this position due to bad conduct. The position of "firstborn" passed to Joseph. 

 

David was called "firstborn" yet he was the youngest in the family (Psalm 89:27, 1 Samuel 16: 11-13). 

 

Ephraim was called the "firstborn" even though he was the second born (Jeremiah 31:9, Genesis 41:51-52). 

 

Thus we can see that the term "firstborn" can be used as a title. And it is in this sense that it is used in connection to Jesus in Colossians 1:15, it has nothing to do with sequence of birth or creation, but rather it is to do with authority.

 

If Paul was saying that Jesus was the first one created then why didn’t he use the Greek word “protoktisis” (first-created) a term which is never used of Christ in the Scriptures?

 

From the context we can know whether the Greek word prototokos in Col 1:15 means "first one born" or "the first in authority".

 

In Col. 1:18 we read of Jesus, "so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything”, this clearly shows the way prototokos should be understood in the preceding verse.

 

So from the context, the Greek word prototokos affirms Christ’s supremacy and sovereignty over all things and does not signify first in chronological sequence. <><

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, DeeDee said:

Would the expression, "Like Father, Like Son" be in line with what you are explaining?

...as in when a Son has a similar "nature and essence" to his Father?

GB of JW promoted for many decades worshiping of Jesus (perhaps only in theological, doctrinal way of how they view Jesus position. This fact was incorporated in Charter of WT Company until the end of 20 century. With few words in one sentence that said that very clearly. 

In Articles of Amendment (on WT Charter) in January 1945 they stated: 

Purpose of Society is ..........for public Christian worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus.

It is notable how God is not named by his personal name! This is one sort of prove how Jesus and God are equal. Because they both are deserved to be worshiped according to PURPOSE OF WT SOCIETY. That was stance of Company for some half of century even JW members didn't been aware of this little detail :)))

If i was memorized correctly  in 1993 Amendment this sentence was thrown out from Charter. They not even using word WORSHIP any more.

So, WT Society and JW members for decades was standing behind Charter and worshiping Jesus, without any knowing they did that. It was just in theoretical sense, by supporting Charter. But black and white prove existing. :))

Problem with Father and Son teachings and interpretations on that, is just one of many that burdening this religion and their leadership from past until today.

source; 

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Cos said:

Folks

 

Isaiah 9:6 is a prophetic description of Christ. The phrase “his name” in Isaiah 9:6 is a Hebrew idiom ......

Hi Cos,

is this opens new angle on looking about all others IDIOMS, not only about prophetic description of Messiah but also about all other characters in OT; angels, JHVH, humans who acted in this and that role .... ? All in all, Bible giving various possibilities for different interpretations, and that is reality. Not only devils bad influence but humans wishes to give answers on things that are above idea, imagination how our  view on matter is only one correct.

You explained very good about term "firstborn". And that is something what WT scholars looking in different way. So here is so many Idioms :))))

greetings!   

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Cos said:

claim that Jesus is the first (in chronological sequence) to be born? And they site for support Colossians 1:15, claiming that the Son is a member of creation. The Watchtower also add the word “other” to the passage in their bible version to give that impression.

 

12 hours ago, Cos said:

If Paul was saying that Jesus was the first one created then why didn’t he use the Greek word “protoktisis” (first-created) a term which is never used of Christ in the Scriptures?

John chapter 17 is Jesus praying to his Father Jehovah. At verse 5, Jesus says these words:

       “So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory

        that I had alongside you BEFORE the world was.” – Jesus

That is why Jesus is rightly called the "firstborn." As Cos states below, "that title could NEVER be lost":

12 hours ago, Cos said:

Guys, if the reference to "firstborn" in Scripture primarily means being the first to have been given life, then that title could never be lost because it would refer to a factual event, the first birth.

 

Then God said: “Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness,… (Gen. 1:26)

 

P.S. The Scripture above shows that Jehovah and Jesus are two different people.

Share this post


Link to post

I would also like to share this Scripture at Philippians 2:5-11:

 

…Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form,

gave no consideration to a seizure,

namely, that he should be EQUAL to GOD.

 

No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.

More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself

and became obedient [to GOD] to the point of death…

 

For this very reason, GOD [Jehovah] exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position

and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—

of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—

and every tongue should openly acknowledge

that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of GOD the FATHER.

 

13 hours ago, Cos said:

What has to be understood is that even thought Jesus by nature is God, He, however, is not the Father. <><

 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 2:41 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

What Lord? Lord Jesus? or Lord JHVH?

@Srecko Sostar Note this Scripture (Philippians 2:9-11) below about the title "Lord"

1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

...GOD [Jehovah] exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position

and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend...

and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of GOD the FATHER [Jehovah].

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, DeeDee said:
  14 hours ago, Cos said:

What has to be understood is that even thought Jesus by nature is God, He, however, is not the Father. <><

 

Cos, note this Scripture (Philippians 2:9-11) below about the word "GOD":

41 minutes ago, DeeDee said:
  47 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

...GOD [Jehovah] exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position

and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend...

and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of GOD the FATHER [Jehovah].

...just as "LORD" is the title of authority given to Jesus in the Scripture above, "GOD" is simply the title of authority for Jehovah. In other words, your quote above says "Jesus...is God." But, the Scripture says that "Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of GOD the FATHER" so this means Jesus was given the title Lord and Jehovah is given the title God. To say "Jesus is God" is like saying a "Vice-President is President."

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, DeeDee said:

For this very reason, GOD [Jehovah] exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position

and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

If i understand you correctly and if i understand this bible verse correctly NAME JESUS CHRIST IS ABOVE every other name, including THE NAME MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL?

But WT teaching that  Jesus went back to heaven after resurrection and that his name in heaven is Michael again (Michael one of the first Princes). What we shall do with this? 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:
20 hours ago, DeeDee said:

For this very reason, GOD [Jehovah] exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position

and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

If i understand you correctly and if i understand this bible verse correctly NAME JESUS CHRIST IS ABOVE every other name, including THE NAME MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL?

But WT teaching that  Jesus went back to heaven after resurrection and that his name in heaven is Michael again (Michael one of the first Princes). What we shall do with this? 

When on earth, the name of the man that we saw here (Jesus) was called "Jesus" by the people on the earth.

In heaven, the name of the man that we saw here (Jesus) is called "Michael" by the beings in heaven.

To help illustrate this, here are two examples:

First Example:

I am called "DeeDee" by the people on this website.

But I am called a different name by people who know me in real life.

Second Example:

Many people are called by a nickname.

And some people have MORE THAN ONE nickname.

Does that explain it?

Share this post


Link to post

 

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:25 PM, DeeDee said:
On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 2:31 PM, DeeDee said:
  14 hours ago, Cos said:

What has to be understood is that even thought Jesus by nature is God, He, however, is not the Father. <><

 

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:25 PM, DeeDee said:

To say "Jesus is God" is like saying a "Vice-President is President."

This might be clearer: To say Jesus is "God" is like saying the Vice-President is "Mr. President."

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, DeeDee said:

When on earth, the name of the man that we saw here (Jesus) was called "Jesus" by the people on the earth.

In heaven, the name of the man that we saw here (Jesus) is called "Michael" by the beings in heaven.

I thought how original, first  name of Lord is/was Word, as it explained by John 1:1. But again, JWorg said how his name is Michael also, and Lord and Prince and Archangel, Messiah and Son, god/God . Because all those names and titles are in possession of same person. 

But again if one person can have all those names and titles and positions and roles, he (Jesus) could also be Father, whatever this would or could mean in  theological and doctrinal meaning for believers.    :))

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But again if one person can have all those names and titles and positions and roles, he (Jesus) could also be Father, whatever this would or could mean in  theological and doctrinal meaning for believers.    :))

Both Jesus and the Father have many roles and titles.

But note: In John chapter 17, Jesus is saying a long prayer to HIS FATHER.

If Jesus is the FATHER, then WHO is Jesus praying to???

Himself???

John 17:1, 2 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son [Jesus] so that your son may glorify you 2 just as you have given him [Jesus] authority over all flesh, so that he [Jesus] may give everlasting life to all those whom you [Father] have given to him [Jesus].

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, DeeDee said:

If Jesus is the FATHER, then WHO is Jesus praying to???

Himself???

I think that he just answered on apostles question, request ... to teach them to pray. 

You are familiar with one very wide habits. Person/people, many times, talking to yourself/himself. And it is normal. Or sometimes we calling ourselves WE.  "What we shall doing today?" but we are in fact single, alone. :)))

As i said before, i do not know real personality of God or Heavens persons, but everything is possible, because God is almighty. 

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I thought how original, first  name of Lord is/was Word, as it explained by John 1:1. But again, JWorg said how his name is Michael also, and Lord and Prince and Archangel, Messiah and Son, god/God . Because all those names and titles are in possession of same person. 

Many NAMES:  YOUR Father may have many NAMES: his legal name, maybe a nickname?, maybe a pet name from your mother?, maybe a name that HIS mother calls him?, maybe a name that his friends call him?, and so on...

Many TITLES: YOUR Father has many TITLES:  son, husband, father, maybe grandfather, his job title, and so on....

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I think that he just answered on apostles question, request ... to teach them to pray. 

Jesus answered the apostles at Matthew 6:9-13 (see below).

The prayer at John chapter 17 is his personal prayer to his Father in heaven (see below).

Matthew 6:9-13

 “You [his apostles] must pray, then, this way:

“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. 11 Give us today our bread for this day; 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.’

 

John 17:1-26

Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you have given him authority over all flesh, so that he may give everlasting life to all those whom you have given to him. 3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. 6 “I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word. 7 Now they have come to know that all the things you gave me are from you; 8 because I have given them the sayings that you gave me, and they have accepted them and have certainly come to know that I came as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I make request concerning them; I make request, not concerning the world, but concerning those whom you have given me, because they are yours; 10 and all my things are yours and yours are mine, and I have been glorified among them. 11 “I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. 12 When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and I am saying these things in the world, so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves. 14 I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 15 “I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world. 19 And I am sanctifying myself in their behalf, so that they also may be sanctified by means of truth. 20 “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. 24 Father, I want those whom you have given me to be with me where I am, in order that they may look upon my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world. 25 Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you, but I know you, and these have come to know that you sent me. 26 I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

21 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As i said before, i do not know real personality of God or Heavens persons, but everything is possible, because God is almighty. 

If you want to, you CAN know God personally and even become his friend.

And you will have no better friend than Jehovah God, the Almighty! :x

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

i do not know real personality of God ...but everything is possible, because God is almighty. 

Yes, without a doubt: 

…Jesus said to them: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” – Matthew 19:26

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2018 at 11:08 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Is 9:6  For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given,
    and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

At the end of God’s promise covenants, a seed is produced.  Jesus was the promised seed of the old covenant and as that seed, fulfilled God’s promise.   He is the promise of life, if we accept him Mark 9:7

The New Covenant will also produce a ‘seed’. Gal 3:7,14,29;4:28,31,26  This seed is the Bride of Christ/”144,000”, fulfilled; as a result of the “first resurrection” to life.   Gal 4:26; 1 Pet 1:23 Rev 3:21; 20:4-6  She is the promised seed of the New Covenant – a “new creation”, and the promise of life, if we accept her.  Matt 5:14; 10:40; 1 Tim 4:16

At that point, one more eternal covenant/promise with God begins -  the Kingdom Covenant, for the rest of Abraham’s seed.  At the “second resurrection”, and when the Bride “comes down out of heaven”, the rest of God’s children receive life on earth.  Ps 37:11,29; Dan 2:44; Exod 37:25; Rev 21:2

Jesus is the savior through his sacrifice, for the “first fruits” - for his wife/Bride/144,000/New Jerusalem/faithful anointed priests and kings.  They become one  Eph 5:23,25-27,30  He is also the savior for God’s spiritual children that come from the bond with his “wife”/New Covenant promise fulfilled.  Rev 22:17   In this way, Jesus is the “Eternal Father”, bringing life to all, through the ransom sacrifice.  John 8:12; 1 John 2:2; Isa 9:6; 1 Cor 15:45 

I hope this makes sense.  

Share this post


Link to post

i found some parallels, similarity.

JHVH = Father, Husband, Savior, King and all everything for Natural Jews, his children, wife ...

Jesus = Father, Husband, Savior, King and all everything for Natural Jews and other humans, his brothers, followers, bride, wife, childrens ...

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

No- one seed grows into tree [root and branch of Jesse] that will fill the whole earth.  

There was a covenant/promise made with the literal nation of Israel, for a seed, who was the Messiah.  That was the old covenant. Heb 8:7,13  He also came from Abraham as his seed; and from Jesus, all other families would be blessed... Acts 13:23,32; Gal 3:16

…through another promise, the New Covenant that Jesus made with his disciples on the night of his last meal with them.             

“In the same way he also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”  Luke 22:20

 The anointed ones are also Abraham’s seed that is produced once the New Covenant is fulfilled/given birth to the “new creation”. 2 Cor 5:17 To get there, they also sacrifice their lives as Jesus sacrificed his life, which was firstly for them, and for all the children of promise.  Gal 4:26; Rev 20:4-6  The “144,000” have followed Jesus’ example and given their life in order for the rest of God’s children to obtain life. John 12:24; Rev 6:9,11; Rom 8:19-21  As a “new creation” Kingdom promise/”mother”covenant, the rest of Abraham’s seed gains life.  Rom 4:13; Gen 28:13,14; Rev 22:1,2,17

Jesus, the Bride, the rest of God’s children are all Abraham’s promised seed; and in succession, all inherit the earth. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

WHAT KINGS IS THIS SCRIPTURE REFERRING TO ACCORDING TO YOU?:

You must be referring to Christ and his ruling “kings”.  

1 Tim 6:15; Rev 5:9,10; 1:5;22:22-24

The first to be the recipient of Ps 37:11,29 is the second Adam – Jesus Christ.  1 Cor 15:45,47  This was according to the promise God made with Abraham. Gen 28:13,14; Rom 4:13

“Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance
and the ends of the earth your possession.”  Ps 2:8

“For everything was created by him,
in heaven and on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions
or rulers or authorities—
all things have been created through him and for him.” Col 1:16

And…Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 15:28; Eph 1:10,20,21; Matt 28:18 

The second who inherit the earth within the family line of God’s children are the “144,000” Gal 3:29,26  Jesus is the firstborn of God; the anointed within his body are the “firstborn” to receive life from him.  John 5:21

If there are firstborn children, they are more to come; in abundance. 1 Cor 5:23

The Bride is the fulfilled covenant/woman/promise – “Sarah” of Gal 4:24,26; 1 Pet 3:14; Acts 3:25; Rom 4:13,16; 9:8; Gal 3:22,24,26,28,29 

I think you are having difficulty in accepting the definition of “new creation”; that these “kings” can be both human and spirit.  Rev 5:9,10 says they will reign on the earth.  We also see scriptures showing them in a heavenly form; (Rev 20:6; 1:20; 8:2,6; Josh 6:4; Mal 2:7);and as I brought out to Arauna on another thread, there are many scriptures that verify their being on earth. 

The first resurrection is complete when the New Covenant/promise is fulfilled by the “144,000” reaching completion.  They are the first to receive life through Christ, and they are the first to be judged as worthy of life, which takes place now.

    Hello guest!
; 
    Hello guest!
; 
    Hello guest!
,
    Hello guest!
,
    Hello guest!
; 
    Hello guest!
; 
    Hello guest!
   Those not anointed can be in line for a “resurrection” to life, now; but it is fulfilled when the  Kingdom arrives and all of Abraham’s seed are made “sons of God”.  Acts 24:15; 1 John 2:2

19 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

ARE EARTHLY KINGS ALLOWED TO BURN INCENSE "TO JEHOVAH" NOW ,OR IS THERE AN EARTHLY PRIESTHOOD NOW AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT ?  [maybe there is. I don't know. I don't know if it's forbidden like in Uzziah's or Korah's day, but doesn't strike me as a good idea]-

:)  https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/50063-the-role-of-the-anointed-ones-in-the-last-days/

 

Share this post


Link to post

It is kinda funny how some who use John 1:1 and claim Jesus is God has no idea of the biblical, historical and scriptural context via manuscripts.

That being said, it is correctly translated to "a god" or "was a god", and such as been stated waaaaaaaay before Jehovah's Witnesses/Bible Students have been established.

I will not go into detail because when I tend to explain something, I go full on context, and I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are in the write for correcting the wording in that text.

Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist (simple wiki search):

You see here most tend to go with "a god" or "was a god", in addition, ancient Greek differs from modern Greek. In ancient times, they rarely use uppercase letters.

 

NOTE: some translations tend to use Divine or divine, Deity or deity, vice versa. what is 100% true regardless of translation, "The Word was With God". Another thing to add, Jesus can't be God the Father because

A::: Shema Yisrael, something that Jesus had to do since he was a Jew born in the law and he included this in prayer to God

and

B::: When Jesus was a Baby, Zechariah thanked God, even giving God praise in Luke 1:68, 69, he began to speak due to Holy Spirit bestowed upon him for Zechariah spoke to God pretty much about Lord Jesus who was still in the womb of Mary. Jesus is refereed to as the Horn of Salvation, in English, The Savior (Born Powerful Savior).

Sahidic Coptic to English - In the beginning existed the word and the word existed with the god and a god was the word

14th century: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)

1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

1864: "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)

1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[16]

1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible

1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

1993: "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[17]

 

I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

Thank you so much for the video.  I have felt and believed this; Jesus is the messenger – of life – the bread of life, through his teachings.  John 6:35

“Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”  John 6:57

“Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways.

In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. God has appointed him heir of all things and made the universe through him.

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Heb 1:1-3

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him.  J0hn 14:23

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:10 AM, Space Merchant said:

I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

Space merchant,

 

Every time a JW wants to argue for their rendering of John 1:1 you cite a list of Bible version which you think support the JW rendering, as if that settles the matter.

 

If citing Bible versions were justifiable then many more translation CAN be cited that have “and the Word was God” many, many more!

 

In fact you JWs will cite anything that you think gives support to your wording from a false altered text to an Occultist rendering of John 1:1.

 

For example you guys quote for support the Sahidic Coptic translation, the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof!”, while ignoring everything else.

 

In the introduction to The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect by George Horner, he explains in his critical apparatus that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

 

Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.” (JW when quoting this tend to leave out the [ ]).

 

Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.

 

“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)

 

“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)

 

“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)

 

“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)

 

“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)

 

Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. When examined carefully the Sahidic Coptic does not support the JW rendering…the claims made by some are unfounded and deceptive. <><

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cos said:

Space merchant,

 

Every time a JW wants to argue for their rendering of John 1:1 you cite a list of Bible version which you think support the JW rendering, as if that settles the matter.

 

If citing Bible versions were justifiable then many more translation CAN be cited that have “and the Word was God” many, many more!

 

In fact you JWs will cite anything that you think gives support to your wording from a false altered text to an Occultist rendering of John 1:1.

 

For example you guys quote for support the Sahidic Coptic translation, the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof!”, while ignoring everything else.

 

In the introduction to The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect by George Horner, he explains in his critical apparatus that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

 

Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.” (JW when quoting this tend to leave out the [ ]).

 

Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.

 

“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)

 

“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)

 

“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)

 

“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)

 

“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)

 

Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. When examined carefully the Sahidic Coptic does not support the JW rendering…the claims made by some are unfounded and deceptive. <><

For the record, I am a Unitarian Christian (I have respect for brothers and sisters in Christ who are aware of Trinity falsehood, as well as improve as Christians) and have stated this briefly before, we to believe that the translation of "God" when referring to Jesus should either be "a god" or "was god", especially in context with John 14:6. Not sure if you are aware, but even before the Jehovah's Witnesses existed, let alone Bible Students, "a god" was used, in addition, some don't always use "a god", some  use "was god (or was divine)", if you took the time to look up the history of John 1:1 translations by some scholars.

I merely cited how other scholars have interpreted John 1:1, regardless, made mention to how these scholars had it to further prove that before the Witnesses took on this rendering just as the others have before them had done the same, and you can see most tend to use "a god" or "was god" (as well as divine in some translations), for this was no a JW only rendering.

For John 1:1 in question, since you brought up the Coptics, The Sahidic Coptic Translation used an indefinite article with the word "god" in the final part of John 1:1. Those ancient translators realized that John's words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God, thus, The Word "was god" or "a god", but not Almighty God.

I find it rather odd that some would have intended the first sentence in the gospel of John to imply the existence of a god other than Yahweh/Jehovah, and for me personally, as stated before, this is not the Jehovah's Witnesses  own interpretation either for others have translated that verse to what it truly is, but that just goes to show, it's all in how one interprets, whether not grammatical rules were in play or not. Also some use the Coptic john 1:1 in a sense has "divine" or "a god" for they see it that the grammar in the Sahidic Coptic strongly suggest "a god".

 

Here is an old blog-post, there is more with the same final conclusion on why "a god" or "was a god, etc fits perfectly compared to "was God": 

    Hello guest!

There is also information from a Hebraic point of view, but that may just be for another time.

That being said, The scriptures itself shows us that John's introductory words (1:1-5) refer to the beginning of the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Word proclaimed through the ministry of God's Anointed, Jesus of Nazareth. The Word of John 1:1 is the Word proclaimed through the ministry of Jesus.

Plus it would seem ridiculous that one who is a Bene Elohim is a creator of all things, when the root of Bene Elohim is that Bene Elohims came into existence because of God, who caused them to exist to begin with, hence, Son(s) of God and or Son(s) from God. This term also identifies Christians, since we are Sons of God.

Trying to prove Jesus is God through John 1:1 is like attempting to proving that El Gibbor is the same meaning as Almighty Father, or that teaching/and or Jesus doing The Shema is non-existent from a view of Trinitarianism, when it is clearly evident that Jesus did do such.

Share this post


Link to post

It is interesting to compare the similarities in Colossians 1:15-17 with John 1:1-3.

 

Colossians 1:15-17:

15 He is the image of the invisible God,

the FIRSTBORN of ALL creation;

 

16 because by means of him

ALL other things were CREATED

in the heavens AND on the earth,

the things visible and the things invisible…

 

ALL other things have been CREATED

THROUGH him and FOR him.

17 Also, he is BEFORE all other things,

and by means of him  ALL other things were made to EXIST,

 

John 1:1-3:

1 In the BEGINNING was the Word,

and the Word was WITH God,

and the Word was a god.

2 This one was in the BEGINNING WITH God.

3 ALL things came into EXISTENCE THROUGH HIM,

and apart from him NOT EVEN ONE THING came into EXISTENCE

Share this post


Link to post

Space merchant,

 

Thank you for explaining a little be more, I apologize for assuming you are a JW.

 

28 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

 if you took the time to look up the history of John 1:1 translations by some scholars.

I have!

 

I showed you that the correct way to use the Coptic translation is to do so in the way the translator intended not as some have done and misapply the translation to suit a false rendering.

 

I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you further if you like?

 

Let me ask you; you do know that from the writings of the early church that the Arianism/Unitarianism idea did not appear historically until the fourth century, you do know that don’t you? <><

Share this post


Link to post
d

Here is what the recorded arguably smartest natural man who has EVER LIVED had to say about the Trinity.

If I followed the teachings of any natural man ... I would follow THIS one.

John Byl, in his article "Newton and the Trinity", paints a clear picture that Newton was non-trinitarian. Newton's published works do not contain clear statements of this nature. In his private notebooks however, some of which were not examined completely until the mid 20th century, Newton committed a significant amount of effort to criticizing the Church's trinitarian doctrines. Byl writes:

In one notebook it is clear that, already in the early 1670's, Newton was absorbed by the doctrine of the Trinity. On this topic he studied extensively not only the Bible, but also much of the Church Fathers. Newton traced the doctrine of the trinity back to Athanasius (298- 373); he became convinced that before Athanasius the Church had no trinitarian doctrine. In the early 4th century Athanasius was opposed by Arius (256-336), who affirmed that God the Father had primacy over Christ. In 325 the Council of Nicea condemned as heretical the views of Arius. Thus, as viewed by Newton, Athanasius triumphed over Arius in imposing the false doctrine of the trinity on Christianity.

Newton further asserted that, in order to support trinitarianism, the Church deliberately corrupted the Bible by modifying crucial texts. For example, Newton claimed that the well-known words of 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”) were not in the original, pre-4th century Bible (Newton, it seems, was not a King James only man). Newton writes that “the Fathers…preferred to desert the Scriptures than not to condemn Arius”. Soon thereafter a universal corruption of Christianity followed the central corruption of doctrine: in the 4th century trinitarianism fouled every element of Christianity.

Newton's anti-trinitarianism is evident also in his interpretation of Revelation. According to Newton, the seventh seal began in the year 380, when trinitarianism was officially ratified at the Council of Constantinople. The great apostasy was not Romanism, but trinitarianism, “the false infernal religion”, to quote Newton's own words.

Economist John Maynard Keynes obtained a significant amount of Newton's unpublished works in 1936 due to his interest in Newton's alchemical (occult) studies. Newton wrote vastly on alchemy, which should be considered a philosophy in it's own right and not merely a proto-science. As a proto-science, it is more akin to a proto-psychology than a proto-chemistry, as is the common opinion (I'm happy to elucidate in chat or in the comments), and Newton was interested in the considerable discussion in the alchemical corpus on God, the human soul, and matter, as Newton, even in his published works, considered his work on physics to be an expression of worship toward the Creator and a revelation of his divine arcitecture. Newton is considered by many biographers to have been a deist, and not necessarily Christian, and so Newton's writings on Christianity should be considered in alchemical or deist context and not primarily in that of Christianity. Indeed, his commentary on Christian doctrine appears to be predominantly critical.

Among the previously unpublished work obtained by Keynes is a list of twelve points stated by Newton on the relation between the Father, Son, and Spirit. Chief differences of Newton's perspective in comparison with both Catholic and Protestant doctrine is that Christ is not human or endowed with a human soul (8), and that the relationship between the persons of the trinity is like that of the saints, that they are distinct beings in agreement with one another (12). In the list, Newton made an entry for a 13th point which he left blank.

  1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
  2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
  3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
  4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
  5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
  6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
  7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
  8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
  9. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
  10. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives from the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
  11. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
  12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.
  13.  

Some points, esp. 5, 6, and 11, support the claim that Newton was a subordinationist, and the Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations strictly reject that teaching. Newton also names the Arians as having a proper notion of the Logos in point 4, while Arianism is also considered heretical by The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations. Byl summarizes Newton's heretical points:

He explicitly declares only the Father to be supreme; the Son is a separate being, different from the Father both in substance and in nature; Christ is not truly God but is the so-called Word and Wisdom made flesh, divine to be sure, but only so far as divinity is communicated by the Father.

 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Cos said:

Space merchant,

 

Thank you for explaining a little be more, I apologize for assuming you are a JW.

 

I have!

 

I showed you that the correct way to use the Coptic translation is to do so in the way the translator intended not as some have done and misapply the translation to suit a false rendering.

 

I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you further if you like?

 

Let me ask you; you do know that from the writings of the early church that the Arianism/Unitarianism idea did not appear historically until the fourth century, you do know that don’t you? <><

No problem, apparently on another forum it is a meme if you are a non-Trinitarian they will assume your faith right off the bat, sometimes with negativity, but I am use to it.

I do know of the history, and the controversy behind it, even of what isn't mention.

Also, Biblical Unitarians are typically or some what Socinian in Christology, not Arian or Semi-Arian.

What you mentioned about writings, I invite you to check out these two videos on a clear analysis on the Nicea controversy, the things that has not been mentioned:

 

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

As well as this book: 

    Hello guest!

Whereas Robert doesn't take sides, but clearly explains the things that went about prior to and during the Council, even afterwards.

 

That being said, what I mentioned about the blog-post, there is several who believe that "a god" is correct over "was God". There are more who speak on the rendering of John 1:1 then just the one guy you mentioned.

I remember seeing a guy who spoke in behalf of JWs on YouTube who has put together an excellent presentation regarding the Coptics and why the JWs as well as those who agree with the rendering of John 1:1. If I find that video I will post it, I will essentially have to go YouTube diving to find it, the video is that old, other videos also share the same information in regards to John 1:1.

Share this post


Link to post

Consider NEWTON's track record, compared to any other natural person who has ever lived.

In anything he published, even after his death .... Newton was NEVER wrong.

Christendom, the political empire disguised as a religion, is responsible for slaughtering A HALF BILLION people, in Europe alone, in the last 1700 years .... and during World War One, killed a MILLION of their brethren on the border between Germany and France, in ONE year long battle.

Those that espouse TRINITARIAN BELIEFS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Hundreds of MILLIONS of PEOPLE.

The proof of any "philosophy" is how it works out in real life.

All else is FANTASY.

If a horse in a race is wearing a cowbell and says "MOOO!", perhaps you don't want to bet on THAT one.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Newton also got things wrong like universal gravitation, and the claim that time was absolute when its not and Unitarianism...just to name a few!

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

No problem, apparently on another forum it is a meme if you are a non-Trinitarian they will assume your faith right off the bat, sometimes with negativity, but I am use to it.

I do know of the history, and the controversy behind it, even of what isn't mention.

Also, Biblical Unitarians are typically or some what Socinian in Christology, not Arian or Semi-Arian.

What you mentioned about writings, I invite you to check out these two videos on a clear analysis on the Nicea controversy, the things that has not been mentioned:

 

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

As well as this book: 

    Hello guest!

Whereas Robert doesn't take sides, but clearly explains the things that went about prior to and during the Council, even afterwards.

 

That being said, what I mentioned about the blog-post, there is several who believe that "a god" is correct over "was God". There are more who speak on the rendering of John 1:1 then just the one guy you mentioned.

I remember seeing a guy who spoke in behalf of JWs on YouTube who has put together an excellent presentation regarding the Coptics and why the JWs as well as those who agree with the rendering of John 1:1. If I find that video I will post it, I will essentially have to go YouTube diving to find it, the video is that old, other videos also share the same information in regards to John 1:1.

Space merchant,

 

Although you seem to deny Unitarianism and Arianism similarity, there is no doubt you both share the same concepts.

 

Anyway, I suggest you read the writings of Christians before the fourth century, which show historically that the Arian concept (shared by Unitarians) was not even heard of. <><

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Cos said:

Newton also got things wrong like universal gravitation, and the claim that time was absolute when its not and Unitarianism...just to name a few!

How about addressing the "Elephant in the Room"?

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Christendom, the political empire disguised as a religion, is responsible for slaughtering A HALF BILLION people, in Europe alone, in the last 1700 years .... and during World War One, killed a MILLION of their brethren on the border between Germany and France, in ONE year long battle.

Those that espouse TRINITARIAN BELIEFS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Hundreds of MILLIONS of PEOPLE.

The proof of any "philosophy" is how it works out in real life.

All else is FANTASY.

If a horse in a race is wearing a cowbell and says "MOOO!", perhaps you don't want to bet on THAT one.

Bad theology produces bad results.

Elephant in the Room  500   ..jpg

Share this post


Link to post

May people know that YOU,

whose name is Jehovah,

You alone are the Most High over all the earth. – Ps. 83:18

 

Please read this Scripture in your own Bible.

Note: the name Jehovah is in the King James Version:

           18 That men may know that thou,

                 whose name ALONE  is JEHOVAH,

                 art the MOST HIGH  over all the earth.

 

John chapter 17 is a long, heart-felt prayer that Jesus prays to Jehovah.

There is no way to conclude anything other than

Jesus is praying to his father Jehovah in this passage.

 

Here is part of the long, heart-felt prayer that Jesus prays to Jehovah in John 17.

Note especially what the man Jesus says to God at verse 5.

 

17 JESUS spoke these things,

and raising his eyes to heaven,

he said: “Father, the hour has come.

Glorify YOUR SON so that YOUR SON may glorify YOU,

2 just as YOU have given HIM authority over all flesh,

so that HE may give everlasting life to all those whom YOU have given to HIM.

 

3 THIS means EVERLASTING LIFE,

their coming to know YOU, the ONLY true GOD, [this ONLY GOD is Jehovah – Ps. 83:18]

and the one whom YOU sent, Jesus Christ.

 

4 I have glorified YOU on the earth,

having finished the work YOU have given ME to do.

 

5 So now, Father, glorify ME at your side

with the glory THAT I HAD alongside you BEFORE the WORLD was.

 

6 “I have made YOUR name manifest [that is, the name Jehovah – Ps. 83:18]

to the men whom YOU gave me out of the world.

They were YOURS, and YOU gave them to ME,

and they have observed YOUR word.

 

7 Now they have come to know that

all the things YOU gave ME are from YOU;

8 because I have given them the sayings that YOU gave ME,

and they have accepted them

and have certainly come to know

that I CAME as YOUR representative,

and they have believed that YOU SENT ME.

 

A final thought…

Jesus says at John 8:32 “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Share this post


Link to post

Note also, Matt. 3:16, 17:

16 After being baptized,

Jesus immediately came up from the water;

and look! the heavens were opened up,

and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove

and coming upon him.

 

17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said:

“This is MY SON, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

Share this post


Link to post

Folks, the early church writers discussed and rebuked many false teaching, but nowhere do they even mention anything that resembles the JW form of religion or even the Unitarian form of religion until the Arians of fourth century. Surely if a group resembling the JW/Unitarian religion were present before the fourth century then the early church writers would have said something about them, but nothing.

 

Instead here is some of what they did say;

 

Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19).

 

Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25)

 

Hippolytus  (170-235) “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8).

 

This is just a few examples of what the early Christians believed and taught before Arianism and its later spin offs; there are many more examples that could be called on.

 

Some, like Mr. Rook, want to blame Christians for all that is wrong in the world like. They will ignore the continual rise of false political idealism to blame Trinitarians for wars. But this kind of self-righteous attitude does not disprove that God is Triune. <><

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cos said:

God is Triune.

The triune aspect of God is actually a Pagan belief.

Many of the Pagan Gods and Goddesses were in a triple form.

In an effort to convert the pagan nations to Christianity,

the early Christian church adopted many Pagan customs, holidays and beliefs

including promoting the Triple God concept for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post