Jesus is God

[God's Truth]

Another example of you being unable reason against the things I say. When Jesus said "pluck out your eye or cut off you hand if it makes you stumble” and you do not accept the face-value reading of the text and believe Jesus literally meant to cut off your hand does that too mean you are denying what is plainly written? (please answer)

You are the one who is unable to be reasoned with.

Jesus says if to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand if it causes you to sin---BUT, those who do NOT obey Jesus won't pluck out their eye and cut off their hand---AND, those who do obey Jesus, they will stop sinning with their eyes and hands so then---SO THEN THEY WON"T NEED TO PLUCK THEM OUT AND CUT THEM OFF.

You don't have truth so you can't be reasoned with.

 

[Clete]

You don't even believe in the same thing as GT and yet you're answering for him, give me a break. Stop trying to get a piece of GT and my debate, you don't speak to cultist remember, have some self-control and follow your own rules.

I didn't ever say I don't' speak to cultist. What I don't do is waste my time debating them. I might as well debate a door knob.

And I certainly was not answering for anyone other than myself. The answer to your question was an emphatic "No". I have no idea what GT believes about it nor does it effect the correct answer. It is not a matter of opinion.

Jesus died in exactly the same sense in which every other righteous person has ever died. There is no caveat, qualification, stipulation or other qualifiers needed. Jesus, God the Son became flesh, died on the cross, was dead for three days and rose from the dead - period.

If you know anyone who is dead then you know what "dead" means and to deny that the Creator God died is to deny the gospel itself.

Clete

 

[Child of God]

Somebody replied to me on this thread, I could not find it.

So I will address the question of the Topic of the thread.

Is Jesus God?

No, Jesus is not God.

Jesus is the Son of God.

Even in his resurrected State in the THRONE OF HEAVEN, GOD is above him.

You can meet Jesus, But GOD is in His heavenly throne..


EVEN IN HEAVEN, the best you can do is is see Jesus.

GOD HIMSELF is above Jesus in a place no one can approach.

Have you read the Bible?

According to the Bible, We can approach Jesus even call him Brother, but God Himself is not approachable nor even observable,
This is all New Testament stuff.

In the Old Testament the Saints could approach God.

We have Enoch as an example.

 

[God's Truth]

I wasn't being illogical, I was simply highlighting just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Instead of trying to reason against anything I say you focus on a single point that adds nothing to the discussion. Again, I will assume that by your lack of proper reply you are unable to refute what I say, so can only assume that what I said is sound. I will again highlight the two points you failed to address.

1. 
   What you said is false.
   
   

   [*]In Isaiah 9:6 it is stated Jesus "will be called" and not Jesus "is called", the context shows Jesus at that time was not the things he was due to prophetically be called.

   
   Jesus is the child spoken of, and he wasn't born yet---SO, HE WILL BE CALLED THOSE THINGS, WHEN HE comes---when he IS BORN.
   
   
   

   [*]You can refer to people who are the founder or start as something as "father", Adam was the father of us all, Satan was the Father of the lie, the Father is the Father as he created all things, and Jesus is the "eternal Father" in the sense he replaced Adam our Father and now lives forever.

You didn't bring up Abraham. Abraham is called a father for being the LITERAL father of the Jews, and, of those who had faith, whether Jew or Gentile. It is about what is spiritual in which we call him 'father'.
Jesus says to his disciples that we are not to call ourselves or each other 'father', because we are brothers and sisters.

No, you just couldn't read 1 Tim 6:15 and understand it properly.

It certainly does, it states Jesus "lives because of the Father" (6:57) something not possible if Jesus is God and that he is the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15) implying that he is part of creation, it also states he is God and has a God over him.

Jesus' body is created. Jesus' Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father the creator.

I've shown that God acts through someone and by him doing so both he, and the person whom he works through can be called the relevant titles of those actions. This gives an alternative understanding of the common misconception that when two people are referred by the same title they are the same person. To claim that I didn't show this by what I said is a blatant ignoring of text.

You have not, nor can not show anyone having all the names Jesus has, expect for God the Fatherl.

 

[Child of God]

It? Do I believe it? it what?

You Failed.

They answer is something about Jesus.

 

[NWL]

In Isaiah 9:6 it is stated Jesus "will be called" and not Jesus "is called", the context shows Jesus at that time was not the things he was due to prophetically be called.

Jesus is the child spoken of, and he wasn't born yet---SO, HE WILL BE CALLED THOSE THINGS, WHEN HE comes---when he IS BORN.

This verse is about the "Son", it doesn't state Jesus by name, I've merely done it out of habit. The Trinity teaches there have always been three in heaven who are one 'the Father, Son and HS' you yourself said "there are three, and they are one" in your writings to me, so are you denying that the second part of the trinity according to Isaiah 9:6 existed as you stated and he only became the "son" when he was born on earth?

You didn't bring up Abraham. Abraham is called a father for being the LITERAL father of the Jews, and, of those who had faith, whether Jew or Gentile. It is about what is spiritual in which we call him 'father'.
Jesus says to his disciples that we are not to call ourselves or each other 'father', because we are brothers and sisters.

So what if I didn't use Abraham in my statement, I also didn't use countless of other persons referred to as a Father in my example, this doesn't change anything I've said. You again said "It is about what is spiritual in which we call him 'father'", I've said this so many times now but this is made up waffle, where is your evidence that "It is about what is spiritual in which we call him 'father'" n relation to Jesus? Repeating it over and over doesn't somehow make what you claim correct according to scripture. I've explained in detail how Jesus is the "eternal Father" explaining it's in reference to him replacing Adam (Adam is all mankind's Father) becoming the "last Adam" and thus becoming our Father in that sense, all you keep saying in regards to this is stating 'I'm wrong' and then repeating "It is about what is spiritual in which we call him 'father'" whilst showing absolutely no scripture to back up your claim, nor do you refute my explanation.

You are like a parrot just reapting the same thing over and over.

Jesus' body is created. Jesus' Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father the creator.

Where is your scriptural evidence to back up your claim? A claim without evidence remains just that, merely a claim.

You have not, nor can not show anyone having all the names Jesus has, expect for God the Father.

Since you deny that I have I'll simply ask you a question pertaining to the point and scripture I used to evidence my point. Remember you saying "nor can not show anyone having all the names Jesus has, expect for God the Father" is an argument from silence and therefore not an argument at all, guess what , since both you and I have never died we must be eternal, prove me wrong! You see how silly that type of reasoning is, just because no other person did what Jesus did, therefore, has the names Jesus has isn't evidence that no one else could.

When it states regarding the Father that "he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed" (acts 17:31), who judges the world through who, does "Jesus judge through the Father" or does the "Father judge through the son"?

When it states in Hebrews 1:1,2 that the Father "Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe", who created the world through according to the verse, did the "Son create the world through the Father "or did the "Father create the world through the Son"?

 

[NWL]

God's Truth 's please reply to the following points I made that you were silent on with your last replies

I asked you "I understand you believe Jesus lived in his spirit, what I'm trying to ask is, is it correct in saying "only Jesus humanity died" when it states he [Jesus] died?"

How is Jesus "the lamb" who takes the scroll from the A&O who is the "one who is, who was, and is coming" and who sits on the throne when comparing Rev 1:4, Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, if he is the A&O the one "sitting on the throne", which one is he? Or Jesus was both the one "sitting on the throne" and "the lamb who took the scroll" and therefore Jesus took the scroll from his own hand?

How is Jesus the A&O the "one who is, who was and is coming" (Rev1:8) if Jesus is clearly mentioned as separate from this one when reading Rev 1:4,5, why would John state they are separate if they are the same one?

 

[NWL]

I didn't ever say I don't' speak to cultist. What I don't do is waste my time debating them. I might as well debate a door knob.

And I certainly was not answering for anyone other than myself. The answer to your question was an emphatic "No". I have no idea what GT believes about it nor does it effect the correct answer. It is not a matter of opinion.

Jesus died in exactly the same sense in which every other righteous person has ever died. There is no caveat, qualification, stipulation or other qualifiers needed. Jesus, God the Son became flesh, died on the cross, was dead for three days and rose from the dead - period.

If you know anyone who is dead then you know what "dead" means and to deny that the Creator God died is to deny the gospel itself.

Clete

Clete

You're meant to be a Christian yet you have the same discriminatory attribute of that of a racist, not that I'm calling or believe you are racist at all friend. A racist person shows discrimination or prejudices against an individual as they do not like the group of people they are part of, its a very narrow-minded and twisted view. I'm a JW, you have negatives views of JW's, instead of treating me with love, as all Christians are taught to due you only show hate. You assume debating me would be "like debating a doorknob", how do you know this, you only think this because your inner self is a breeding ground for discrimination when it's not even warranted as I've done nothing to you accept use logical reasoning and debate. As I've said before, this leaves me to only presume you are incapable of such a thing as you lack the reasoning ability and doctrine to do so. Remember what I said to you when I first spoke to you, I said I'm a seeker of truth, if you can prove it I'll believe it, I've changed my understanding about the bible before, there is no reason why I can't do it again.

You say Jesus died in the same way as any other man yet you believe him to be God too, thus if Jesus is God and Jesus died God, or at least a part of him, died. You like God's truth make many statements that show you presuppositions "God the Son became flesh" you say, where does the bible ever call Jesus "God the son" and where does it ever say "God the Son became flesh"? It never does, you presuppose these ideas, place thme in a statement as you just did and say "period" like your point is proven despite the whole ideas behind your statement being found nowhere in the bible.

When you say "to deny that the Creator God died is to deny the gospel itself" are you really claiming God who is eternal 'died'? If so how is it possible God can die when scripture states God cannot die?

 

[NWL]

You aren't paying attention.

Angels can sin too.

God can't sin, and , Jesus is God come as a man.

Where is the bible does it say Jesus could not sin? You are correct that God cannot sin but to say "Jesus is God come as a man" is incorrect and the very thing we are debating, no scripture (non-spurious) states that God came as a man, all you've simply done when you state this is assume Jesus is God come as a man who thus can't sin. Satan tempted Jesus, why would Satan attempt to tempt Jesus if he incapable of sinning? It's a pointless task, the only reason Satan tempted Jesus was because he had the potential to sin. If one were to say "satan wanted to see if Jesus was or wasn't God" then they would be ignoring the fact that if Jesus was God as man then Satan still wouldn't know if he was God by Jesus not sinning as there are many persons who do not sin when being tempted, so still, the fact remains, Satan tempting Jesus proves that Satan knew the man who was tempting was capable of sinning, why else would he do it. Think of Lukes account of the night before Jesus died, Jesus said "Father, if you want to, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.” 43 Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him" (Luke 22:42,43), Jesus was strengthened by an angel, why would Jesus who is incapable of sinning or falling into temptation according to you need to be strengthened just after asking the Father to "remove this cup from me" referring to the death he was about to suffer if it was impossible for him to fail.

So again, Satan tempting Jesus proves he isn't God as why would Satan tempt someone who he knows cannot be tempted, to say "Satan didn't know if Jesus was God but wanted to see if he was" is bad reasoning as it ignores the fact that Satan still wouldn't know Jesus was God by him not sinning as 'not sinning' doesn't equate being God and Jesus needing to be strengthened after asking the Father "remove this cup from me" shows he is capable of sinning since why would he need more strength to continue if he was incapable of sinning.

The fact remains, Jesus was a man just as men are men today, he was the "last Adam" and just as capable of sinning as you and I. Please show me why it couldn't be an angel. Angels are perfect beings, yes they're capable of sinning (as there are fallen angels, demons) but that does not mean they will sin if under trial, an angel could have taken on human form as Jesus did, resited the devil as Jesus did and died for mankind as Jesus did. Nothing you've said has refuted this idea yet, stating "angels can sin" is not proof that an angel would not be able to do what Jesus did.

Jesus is a spirit son of God as the bible states "I [Jesus] live because of the Father" (John 6:57), God, however, doesn't live because of anyone,and that he is "the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15), Jesus is a spirit son of God as many angels are spirit sons of God, the same way angels can sin Jesus could sin.

Jesus was sinless because he chose the way that God his Father taught and not the way of his flesh.

You are a JW, so you don't believe that spirits don't die, so you won't understand a lot of things that are spoke of concerning the spirit.

Where in the bible does it state "spirits don't die" for you to claim they don't hmmm? You are the one who will and does not understand the scripture as you assume spirits cannot die despite the bible never making such a claim.

You are the one who is unable to be reasoned with.

Jesus says if to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand if it causes you to sin---BUT, those who do NOT obey Jesus won't pluck out their eye and cut off their hand---AND, those who do obey Jesus, they will stop sinning with their eyes and hands so then---SO THEN THEY WON"T NEED TO PLUCK THEM OUT AND CUT THEM OFF.

You don't have truth so you can't be reasoned with.

Why can't you answer m question directly, you're not a politician my friend, are you? Again was Jesus being literal when he said "pluck out your eye or cut off you hand if it makes you stumble”, or was he being figurative? Does Jesus literally want people to chop their hands and pluck their eyes out if it "keeps" making someone stumble? Remember, I'm not asking what you believe actually happens to ones who obey and do not obey Jesus I'm asking if Jesus literally wanted people to remove limbs or if he was being figurative.

Moreover, Jesus wasn't making the point that no one sins, therefore it's not needed to cut off your limbs as you claim. The scriptures are clear, every man sins, even those who accept and follow Christ. (1 John 2:1) "My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one." John clearly implied there were sinners, you don't hear him repeating the claim to literally cut of limbs if they carry on, rather he states Jesus will help them, by means of his ransom no doubt. Paul wrote to the Christian congregation in Corinth encouraging them to stop sinning, the Christians were sinning, he didn't tell them to start cutting of limbs either, he just encouraged them to stop, (1 Corinthians 5:1) "Actually sexual immorality is reported among you" or to throw out the one who call themselves Christian but fail to stop.

 

[NWL]

Firstly the NWT is not "my" translation, I did not claim anyone Bible translation of the Bible is the correct one, you keep saying this, stop. Secondly, it does not matter is the NWT is the only translation of the New Testament that renders John 1:1, what only matters is if the translation is grammatically and contextually correct. The type of argument you are using is an"argument from majority", just because the majority of Bible translations of the NT translate John 1:1c "the God" is NOT evidence its correct, especially when scholars -even Trinitarians ones- state "a god" is a correct translation of John 1:1c.

So again, are all the translators I showed, even the Trinitarians ones, who state John 1:1c can be translated "a god" also changing the Bible?

From gotquestions.org

Bright Raven

Lol, a wise man once said "if you can't explain it you don't understand it well enough", this no doubt applies to you BR. You yourself cannot explain why you think John 1:1c translated as "a god" is incorrect despite you claiming it is, and therefore have to rely on 'something you found on the internet' to try and prove it. Unless you can explain it yourself do not bother claiming something it's incorrect.

 

[Clete]

Clete

You're meant to be a Christian yet you have the same discriminatory attribute of that of a racist, not that I'm calling or believe you are racist at all friend. A racist person shows discrimination or prejudices against an individual as they do not like the group of people they are part of, its a very narrow-minded and twisted view. I'm a JW, you have negatives views of JW's, instead of treating me with love, as all Christians are taught to due you only show hate.

Your cult has taught you poorly.

First of all, you are literally delusional. All cultist are! There is not one single solitary exception - period. Cultists are delusional by definition. There is no profit in debating with the delusional. Debating is reserved for those who are not delusional. Granting the delusional equal status with those of sound mind is a compromise where only the insane can profit. I lose the moment I open my mouth to debate a delusional man.

Secondly, and far more importantly, you are confusing love with being nice. God is not nice. You will go to Hell and spent eternity there if you do not repent of this stupidity you think counts as Christianity and neither I nor God Himself will ever spend one second thinking about you for the rest of eternity. You will be left alone in your disbelief and hatred of the Him who created you, namely Jesus Christ, the Son of the only true God.

You assume debating me would be "like debating a doorknob", how do you know this, you only think this because your inner self is a breeding ground for discrimination when it's not even warranted as I've done nothing to you accept use logical reasoning and debate.

Psalms 139:²⁰ For they speak against You wickedly;
Your enemies take Your name in vain.
²¹ Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
²² I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.

As I've said before, this leaves me to only presume you are incapable of such a thing as you lack the reasoning ability and doctrine to do so.

This is a lie that you knew was false when you wrote it.

Remember what I said to you when I first spoke to you, I said I'm a seeker of truth, if you can prove it I'll believe it, I've changed my understanding about the bible before, there is no reason why I can't do it again.

I know what JW's believe and I know why they believe it. If your claim were true, you'd have "changed your understanding" years ago. You likely are past rescuing at this point, a major act of God's Holy Spirit Himself not withstanding. You're so entrenched in the beliefs of your cult it would cost you more than nearly any man would be willing to pay to drop it. It would cost you not only the years of your life you've spent learning how to defend your doctrine but also your family and every friend you've probably ever known.

You say Jesus died in the same way as any other man yet you believe him to be God too, thus if Jesus is God and Jesus died God, or at least a part of him, died.

Yep!

You like God's truth make many statements that show you presuppositions "God the Son became flesh" you say, where does the bible ever call Jesus "God the son" and where does it ever say "God the Son became flesh"?

Look, do you think that now you can bait me into debating it?

The bible does not use the phrase "God the Son". This fact is not in dispute because it is not relevant.

It never does, you presuppose these ideas, place thme in a statement as you just did and say "period" like your point is proven despite the whole ideas behind your statement being found nowhere in the bible.

No. I made no effort to prove anything and "period" doesn't imply a proof as been made or even offered. It simply means that there's nothing left to add to the statement. There is no comma, caveat or condition that needs added to complete the idea.

When you say "to deny that the Creator God died is to deny the gospel itself" are you really claiming God who is eternal 'died'? If so how is it possible God can die when scripture states God cannot die?

It's possible because the Creator became a man and allowed Himself to be murdered on the cross as a blood (life's blood) sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. If He didn't die then it doesn't work.

Your confusion is rooted in your doctrine, not in anything the bible teaches. You neither know what it means to die nor do you read the bible (the real one).

Clete

 

[God's Truth]

Where is the bible does it say Jesus could not sin?

You don’t pay attention enough to debate; show where I said that.

 

[God's Truth]

God's Truth 's please reply to the following points I made that you were silent on with your last replies

I am not silent on your questions.

I asked you "I understand you believe Jesus lived in his spirit, what I'm trying to ask is, is it correct in saying "only Jesus humanity died" when it states he [Jesus] died?"

What do you mean by saying he died in his humanity? All humans have spirits that live on in consciousness after the death of the body. Jesus died in the flesh and lived on in his Spirit.

How is Jesus "the lamb" who takes the scroll from the A&O who is the "one who is, who was, and is coming" and who sits on the throne when comparing Rev 1:4, Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, if he is the A&O the one "sitting on the throne", which one is he?

There are three, and the three are one and the same.

Or Jesus was both the one "sitting on the throne" and "the lamb who took the scroll" and therefore Jesus took the scroll from his own hand?

Jesus is God come as a man. We have to go through what God did for us when He came to earth as a man and died for us.

How is Jesus the A&O the "one who is, who was and is coming" (Rev1:8) if Jesus is clearly mentioned as separate from this one when reading Rev 1:4,5, why would John state they are separate if they are the same one?

You aren't being completely accurate when you say John stated they were different.

Revelation 1:4-5

⁴ John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

⁵ And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,



Now read scripture 17 and 18:


¹⁷ And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

¹⁸I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.




That is Jesus saying HE IS THE FIRST AND THE LAST.

He says he lives and was dead.


Isaiah 48:12 Listen to me, Jacob,

Israel, whom I have called:

I am he;

I am the first and I am the last.

13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,

and my right hand spread out the heavens;

when I summon them,

they all stand up together.


Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.


Revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

 

[God's Truth]

Originally posted by God's Truth
Jesus' body is created. Jesus' Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father the creator.
Where is your scriptural evidence to back up your claim? A claim without evidence remains just that, merely a claim.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Since you deny that I have I'll simply ask you a question pertaining to the point and scripture I used to evidence my point. Remember you saying "nor can not show anyone having all the names Jesus has, expect for God the Father" is an argument from silence and therefore not an argument at all, guess what , since both you and I have never died we must be eternal, prove me wrong! You see how silly that type of reasoning is, just because no other person did what Jesus did, therefore, has the names Jesus has isn't evidence that no one else could.

What you said is too confusing. Could you explain it again?
Jesus is the only one with all the names God the Father has, even the name 'Father'.
Stop acting like I say things that I do not say.
You have done that more than once.
I go by what the Bible says. What do you mean from silence?

When it states regarding the Father that "he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed" (acts 17:31), who judges the world through who, does "Jesus judge through the Father" or does the "Father judge through the son"?

When it states in Hebrews 1:1,2 that the Father "Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe", who created the world through according to the verse, did the "Son create the world through the Father "or did the "Father create the world through the Son"?

They are the same person.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Of course Jesus is God. He said so himself.

 

[NWL]

You don’t pay attention enough to debate; show where I said that.

You stated, "God can't sin, and , Jesus is God come as a man", so since you stated God can't sin and you believe Jesus was God come as man when on earth you must believe Jesus couldn't sin.

If you're stating you believe Jesus as man could sin then even better! My point is still relevant, an Angel could have done the things Jesus did, there was no reason at all that only Jesus could have done what Jesus did. I would still like to hear how what I'm saying is incorrect according to bible principle.

 

[NWL]

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

The Father is a spirit - "true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24)
Angels are spirits - "Are not all angels ministering spirits" (Hebrews 1:14)
Jesus is a spirit - "So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Being a "spirit" is in relation to their boldly form, a man on earth is made of flesh, the people of heaven are spirits. You again make the mistake of having an attribute of God as meaning the person is God, Jesus being a spirit is no more proof he is God than Angels being spirits are God, reasoning needs to be consistent.

What you said is too confusing. Could you explain it again?
Jesus is the only one with all the names God the Father has, even the name 'Father'.
Stop acting like I say things that I do not say.
You have done that more than once.
I go by what the Bible says. What do you mean from silence?

You've previously stated "only Jesus has the names of God, therefore he must be God" (paraphrase) and "no other persons, such as Angels or saviours have had all the names of God". These two points are an argument from silence, an argument from silence is to express something it true based on the absence of evidence, rather than its presence. It's like me saying "since no one has ever told me I'm ugly I must be beautiful" or "since I've never died I must be immortal", these are arguments from silence, just because their is a lack of evidence isn't evidence that one who has never been told they're ugly are attractive or one who has never died can't die. Likewise you claim "only Jesus has the names of God, therefore he must be God", this ignore the fact that Jesus is always as spoken about as being sent and doing actions on behalf of the Father, thus he has the names of the Father, such as savior, redeemer, king of kings, as he has done the actions on behalf of the Father, ANYONE of Gods spirit sons could have done what Jesus did, if one had, they would have been called all the things Jesus was called instead of Jesus. Your evidence relies on the fact that no other person shares the names of God as evidence, when in reality you're using the "lack of evidence" as you evidence, its an argument from silence. The same applied to when you have said ""no other persons, such as Angels or saviors have had all the names of God", you're using the lack of evidence as evidence you are correct, its an argument from silence.

I've explained the reason what Jesus has the name Father, it has nothing to do with him being the Father but instead relates to him being the "last Adam", you have yet to show me this isn't a possible interpretation of Isaiah 9:6.

When it states regarding the Father that "he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed" (acts 17:31), who judges the world through who, does "Jesus judge through the Father" or does the "Father judge through the son"?

When it states in Hebrews 1:1,2 that the Father "Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe", who created the world through according to the verse, did the "Son create the world through the Father "or did the "Father create the world through the Son"?

They are the same person.

If they are the same person then why does it state that the Father did things through Jesus? How is it possible the Father created the universe through Jesus if Jesus was the Father who created all things?

Doesn't it make sense that the Father is a separate person from Jesus can "created the world through him" as the verse says and other verses states, such as 1 Cor 8:6 that states all things are "from the Father" but "through Jesus" perfectly expressing the same thing as Hebrews 1:1,2?

(1 Corinthians 8:6) "..there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.."

 

[NWL]

What do you mean by saying he died in his humanity? All humans have spirits that live on in consciousness after the death of the body. Jesus died in the flesh and lived on in his Spirit.

If you believe a being is made up of a spirit and a body and it stated the being Jesus died then we should take Scripture for what it says and believe both his spirit and body died. You believe man has a spirit that is immortal, where is this ever expressed in the bible? I've said this many times but your belief structure is ridiculed in assumptions.

If Jesus was God as man and "died" but you claim his spirit lived then are you saying only Jesus humanity, "him being human", died.

How is Jesus "the lamb" who takes the scroll from the A&O who is the "one who is, who was, and is coming" and who sits on the throne when comparing Rev 1:4, Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, if he is the A&O the one "sitting on the throne", which one is he?

There are three, and the three are one and the same.

Again you've avoided answering my question and also avoided the point I raised. Again answer it directly! If you believe God is three persons who is one then are you saying the "one God" was sitting on the throne and the "one God" was the Lamb who took the scroll from the "one Gods" hand?

Again, please note that no scholars today agree that 1 John 5:7 and the rendering "There are three, and the three are one and the same" is a spurious text, are you a KJV only advocate? By your repeated claim of this rendering are you suggesting it is the correct rendering?

=NWLOr Jesus was both the one "sitting on the throne" and "the lamb who took the scroll" and therefore Jesus took the scroll from his own hand?

Jesus is God come as a man. We have to go through what God did for us when He came to earth as a man and died for us.

How does what you said answer if Jesus was both the both the one "sitting on the throne" and "the lamb who took the scroll" from the "one sitting on the throne". You are clearly having difficulty answering the question, do not just makeup waffle in an attempt to answer the question, if you realize you can't be humble enough to admit you can't.

You aren't being completely accurate when you say John stated they were different.

Revelation 1:4-5

⁴ John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

⁵ And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,



Now read scripture 17 and 18:


¹⁷ And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

¹⁸I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.




That is Jesus saying HE IS THE FIRST AND THE LAST.

He says he lives and was dead.


Isaiah 48:12 Listen to me, Jacob,

Israel, whom I have called:

I am he;

I am the first and I am the last.

13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,

and my right hand spread out the heavens;

when I summon them,

they all stand up together.


Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.


Revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

How does the above prove what I've said is inaccurate as you claim, simply making a claim and then quoting scripture that nowhere go against my claim does not prove I'm being inaccurate, where is your explanation as to how I'm inaccurate?

Please show me how John didn't separate Jesus from the "one who is, was and is coming" by the above? If you don't I can only assume you claim was a baseless one and false.

 

[NWL]

Your cult has taught you poorly.

First of all, you are literally delusional. All cultist are! There is not one single solitary exception - period. Cultists are delusional by definition. There is no profit in debating with the delusional. Debating is reserved for those who are not delusional. Granting the delusional equal status with those of sound mind is a compromise where only the insane can profit. I lose the moment I open my mouth to debate a delusional man.

As I said you have all the same characteristics of a racist person and you have proven it, a racist person will say "all black people are thieves", "all white people can't dance", "all Asians are dirty". You do not know me at all, yet because you believe JW's are a cult and I am a JW you assume you know my characteristics. What 's ironic is the fact the only "delusional" thing said so far is that I'm literally delusional and all cultist are. You say "Cultists are delusional by definition", what is your definition of a cult?

Secondly, and far more importantly, you are confusing love with being nice. God is not nice. You will go to Hell and spent eternity there if you do not repent of this stupidity you think counts as Christianity and neither I nor God Himself will ever spend one second thinking about you for the rest of eternity. You will be left alone in your disbelief and hatred of the Him who created you, namely Jesus Christ, the Son of the only true God.

A literal fiery Hell does not exist, my friend, you have been lied to. I am not shackled into my faith by the threat of Hell as you. As you have already seen me show when you die you are no more aware of anything then you are when you asleep.

Psalms 139:²⁰ For they speak against You wickedly;
Your enemies take Your name in vain.
²¹ Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
²² I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.

As I've said before, this leaves me to only presume you are incapable of such a thing as you lack the reasoning ability and doctrine to do so.

This is a lie that you knew was false when you wrote it.

How can how I feel be a lie? If I've previously asked you question and you've point blank refused to answer the question then that is evidence you can't or do not want to, either way you're incapable of answer a question. Stop acting like a child by contradicting everything I say.

I know what JW's believe and I know why they believe it. If your claim were true, you'd have "changed your understanding" years ago. You likely are past rescuing at this point, a major act of God's Holy Spirit Himself not withstanding. You're so entrenched in the beliefs of your cult it would cost you more than nearly any man would be willing to pay to drop it. It would cost you not only the years of your life you've spent learning how to defend your doctrine but also your family and every friend you've probably ever known.

If you knew what we believed then you'd most likely be a JW yourself as you would know its the truth. Not that I ever think you would but I'm 100% sure you could not explain all the reasons why we believe what we believe, for example, you mentioned hell earlier, if you knew what we believed you would know stating I would go to hell would be an empty threat as nowhere does it say the punishment for sinning is a fiery hell and that is what we believe, out of ignorance you stated this though. I'm pretty sure you could not explain all the reasons we understand Jesus to be created by Prov 8:22 or Col 1:15 example, yet you arrogantly claim you know what we believe and why.

Look, do you think that now you can bait me into debating it?

The bible does not use the phrase "God the Son". This fact is not in dispute because it is not relevant.

I made no effort to prove anything and "period" doesn't imply a proof as been made or even offered. It simply means that there's nothing left to add to the statement. There is no comma, caveat or condition that needs added to complete the idea.

I'm not debating trying to debating you I'm simply showing your arrogance and ignorance in your statements, its wrong to make up a title for Jesus and use the title as evidence when it is false altogether, especially when you don't even use scripture as evidence.

Stating "God the son" is very relevant, imagine if in a stated to you "Jesus the created god" came to earth and died for out sins- period", you wouldn't be wrong to jump all over my statement and be like "where in the bible does it ever say Jesus was created for you to say Jesus was created". Likewise, you calling Jesus by title that does not exist in the bible is wrong and stupid to say in such a setting as this.

It's possible because the Creator became a man and allowed Himself to be murdered on the cross as a blood (life's blood) sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. If He didn't die then it doesn't work.

Your confusion is rooted in your doctrine, not in anything the bible teaches. You neither know what it means to die nor do you read the bible (the real one).

You've made a claim "God died", yet the bible states "Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die" (Habakkuk 1:12), are you claiming the bible writer and God's word here is incorrect?

Jehovah/YHWH to a trinitarian is the trinity, namely the Father, Son and HS, Jehovah himself states “For I am Jehovah; I do not change" (Malachi 3:6), God is three person, yet you claim one of the three-person died and God for a time was only two persons, this is a change in the Godhead, yet the bible states Jehovah does not change, I cannot see how what you believe is consistent with what the bible teaches. If Jesus as God can die it means both the Father and HS can die, God is, therefore, no more God than man is since he is just a mortal person with immense power. You worship a mortal God.

 

[NWL]

God's Truth please reply to the following points I made that you were silent on with your last replies:

Again, was Jesus being literal when he said "pluck out your eye or cut off you hand if it makes you stumble”, or was he being figurative? Does Jesus literally want people to chop their hands and pluck their eyes out if it "keeps" making someone stumble? Remember, I'm not asking what you believe actually happens to ones who obey and do not obey Jesus I'm asking if Jesus literally wanted people to remove limbs or if he was being figurative.

This verse is about the "Son", it doesn't state Jesus by name, I've merely done it out of habit. The Trinity teaches there have always been three in heaven who are one 'the Father, Son and HS' you yourself said "there are three, and they are one" in your writings to me, so are you denying that the second part of the trinity according to Isaiah 9:6 existed as you stated and he only became the "son" when he was born on earth?

Where in the bible does it state or imply "spirits don't die" for you to claim they don't?