Yep.
Christians worship Christ; JW's do not!
- Thread starter Apple7
- Start date
Yep.
Let's go with that (the Word is just an idea in the mind of GOD) and see where it ends up .....
The idea was in the beginning.
The idea was with GOD.
The idea was GOD.
The idea became flesh.
Whichever one wants to place there for 'Word' (idea or person), it is GOD and it became flesh.
No matter what church, denomination, cult, philosophy, etc, that you affiliate with, if you haven't become a child of God through hearing the 'One true Gospel' and placing ALL your faith in Christ as your personal Savior, you're NOT considered a member of the 'Body of Christ' and will NOT inherit eternal life. Anyone who is NOT a member of the 'Body of Christ' cannot consider themselves to be a 'True Christian.'
genuineoriginal
New member
That logic was proven wrong because "The Word" is a new name for Jesus and not one He had in the beginning.
That logic was proven wrong because Jesus corrected the Pharisees who claimed He was calling Himself God by making sure they knew He was calling Himself the Son of God.
That logic was proven wrong because Jesus was quoting the Law to Satan as proof that He was not breaking the Law, but throughout scriptures many people are worshiped without anyone thinking they are God because of that.
The article has a lot of verses and absolutely no content that provides evidence that Jesus is God.
It is like the author just threw a bunch of random verses out hoping that someone might mistake a few of them as evidence that Jesus is God.
There aren't any points left. :idunno:
Since Jesus never claimed to be God, but always claimed to be the Son of God, He never lied.
Since Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, He is not a lunatic.
The claim that Jesus is YHWH, LORD, GOD is disputable since there is no clear evidence that the Bible ever teaches that Jesus is YHWH, LORD, GOD.
You got nothing.
Unless Christ is the angel Michael, then they are worshiping and following a Christ that is not the Christ of scripture.
If they are not following the Christ of scripture, then how can they be called Christian?
Hey Gen-O, does the word SEMANTICS sound familiar to you?
His own apostles called Him Lord, God, and Savior.
Also, those who CHANGE who Christ truly is, are following 'Another gospel' and not the 'True Gospel.'
genuineoriginal
New member
There are three names given, two are written and one is the new name that Jesus is called: "The Word of God"
g2537 καινός kainos
- new
- as respects form
- recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
- as respects substance
- of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of
- as respects form
Are you claiming that the new name is one that was used before (in the beginning)?
genuineoriginal
New member
You must not know that all believers in Christ are members of the body of Christ.
No.
I was raised in several denominations of mainstream Protestant churches.
You are not qualified to make the call of what is required to be a member of the body of Christ.
That is obvious by the way you call it 'Body of Christ' instead of body of Christ and exclude many believers in Christ from membership.
genuineoriginal
New member
I'm saying that "new" does not automatically imply that it is something that has never existed before.
But here you are trying to imply it does.
And you are adding words to scripture that are not there.
The verse does not say that the new name is "the Word".
The verse does not tell what the new name is at all.
For one that likes to complain that others don't have scripture that plainly states it outright, you sure are backpedaling on that.
genuineoriginal
New member
If the Trinity doctrine is a mistake, then all Trinitarians are following a Christ that is not the Christ of scripture.
If the Trinity doctrine is not a mistake, anyone that relies on the clear teachings of scripture that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" is still worshiping and following the Christ of scripture, even if they don't accept the Trinity doctrine.
It is a good thing that the requirements found in the Bible are not as strict as mainstream Christianity tries to make them.
Romans 10:8-10 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. |
John 3:17-19 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. |
John 3:36 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. |
And there is a reason why it was structured that way in Greek.
The JWs are flat out wrong to suggest the Greek grammar means the Word was "a god (little g)".
But then again, the JW's NWT translation of scripture was constructed by and supervised by men that were not learned in Greek.
Each time I have asked them to produce the names and credentials of the men that constructed the NWT, they answer with, "We don't bother with things like that, We trust it is because the Watchtower society told us to trust it".
Along with the additional lame excuse of, "We don't want to prop them up as an excuse for pride, so we never mention who they are".
They are deceptive frauds.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, arguments over semantics is at the very core of the debate over the Trinity Doctrine.
Trinity - History
Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs, all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies took some centuries to be resolved.
Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, "of the same being") in the sense he used it.
Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being. For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220.
In the fourth century, Arius, as traditionally understood, taught that the Father existed prior to the Son who was not, by nature, God but rather a changeable creature who was granted the dignity of becoming "Son of God". In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father". The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of "three persons, one being".
The third Council of Sirmium, in 357, was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;
Athanasius (293–373), who was present at the Council as one of the Bishop of Alexandria's assistants, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense. Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and "hypostasis" overlapped then, so that "hypostasis" for some meant "essence" and for others "person".
The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life. He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[50] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.
Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs, all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies took some centuries to be resolved.
Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, "of the same being") in the sense he used it.
Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being. For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220.
In the fourth century, Arius, as traditionally understood, taught that the Father existed prior to the Son who was not, by nature, God but rather a changeable creature who was granted the dignity of becoming "Son of God". In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father". The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of "three persons, one being".
The third Council of Sirmium, in 357, was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;
Athanasius (293–373), who was present at the Council as one of the Bishop of Alexandria's assistants, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense. Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and "hypostasis" overlapped then, so that "hypostasis" for some meant "essence" and for others "person".
The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life. He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[50] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.
I didn't ask about trinitarians.
I asked if JWs follow a Christ that is the angel Michael, are they following the Christ of scripture?
Exactly. All you have to do is accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and strive to live by His teachings with the word and action.
And Jesus is the Judge of our salvation.
Many Christians don't like Jesus' hard to follow teachings because we have to abandon our worldly way of living to follow Him.
So they make up complicated doctrines to negate Jesus' simple and clear teachings.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
The book of Revelation begins: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" but His name is called "The Word of God" in Revelation 19:13.
This shows that it is a new name being used.
I take that as confirmation for my objections that the Bible does not teach the Trinity doctrine.
The Trinity doctrine comes from preconceptions about the nature of Jesus and the nature of God followed by reading the Bible to find proof texts to support those preconceptions.
The preconceptions brought into the study of the scriptures came from Gentiles trying to understand the writings of Jewish believers with a mindset formed from Greek Philosophy instead of Judaism.
No Jewish believer would have accepted the Trinity doctrine, that is why it took hundreds of years before the misunderstandings of the Gentile believers to develop the Trinity doctrine.
genuineoriginal
New member
The Jehovah Witness translation relies on the lack of τὸν before θεόν in the verse.
τὸν θεόν would have been translated as "the God", but without τὸν the translation is just "god".
However, most translators rely on ὁ before λόγος in the phrase καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος as an indication that the translation should not be the literal "and God was the Word" but should be rearranged to "and the Word was God", since the article ὁ could be taken to indicate that ὁ λόγος is the subject and not θεὸς.
genuineoriginal
New member
You missed the point of my post.
Anyone that relies on doctrines that are not clearly taught in the Bible for their understand of who Christ is cannot be following the Christ of scripture, whether that is a claim that Jesus is a Triune God or that Jesus is the archangel Michael.
However, scripture clearly teaches that we must believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and anything else we call Him will be forgiven.
Luke 12:10 10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. |